I don’t think we can know for sure, but the typical reason SCOTUS refuses to hear an appeal is that they do not feel the case represents a significant question of law. As SCOTUS generally sees it, they’re not about “swooping in to right injustice”. They’re about being the final arbiter of actual questions of law. If there are no actual questions of law worth addressing, there’s no reason to take the case whether the verdict was just or unjust. There is more than one defensible outcome to a lot of trials, and SCOTUS is often not trying to “find the one right outcome”.
I think the exception to that would be if appeals courts go rogue and rule in direct contradiction to established law. Well that, and if SCOTUS wants to go rogue and themselves rule in direct contradiction to established law (like Dobbs)
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Does anyone know why they won’t hear this case?
I don’t think we can know for sure, but the typical reason SCOTUS refuses to hear an appeal is that they do not feel the case represents a significant question of law. As SCOTUS generally sees it, they’re not about “swooping in to right injustice”. They’re about being the final arbiter of actual questions of law. If there are no actual questions of law worth addressing, there’s no reason to take the case whether the verdict was just or unjust. There is more than one defensible outcome to a lot of trials, and SCOTUS is often not trying to “find the one right outcome”.
I think the exception to that would be if appeals courts go rogue and rule in direct contradiction to established law. Well that, and if SCOTUS wants to go rogue and themselves rule in direct contradiction to established law (like Dobbs)