The US Supreme Court doesn't affirm an appeal, but the judgment of the lower court that last reviewed the case. "Affirmed" means they agree with the lower court's decision and uphold it. There is always a notation about the Supreme Court's judgment at the end of the case syllabus (summary), followed by a more formal pronouncement at the conclusion of the opinion (written decision and reasoning).
For example, the opinion for CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McBride, (2011) ended with these words:
"As the courts below so held, the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is Affirmed."
deciding cases on their own
I am doing that exam paper right now! I think supreme court
No. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution and federal laws is definitive. There are situations where a federal agency (or the Federal Reserve) could change its policy slightly to try to work around a Supreme Court decision while still basically doing the same thing, but that isn't "overriding" the Supreme Court.
A US Supreme Court justice who disagrees with the majority opinion writes a dissenting opinion, explaining why he or she disagrees with the majority.
Yes and no. The US Supreme Court doesn't have veto power, and can't overturn a legislative act unless it is properly challenged in the federal court system and petitioned to the Supreme Court under its appellate jurisdiction. The Court can't actively seek out legislation to overrule.
The Supreme Court establishes the law of our land by issuing opinions supported by all or supported by a majority of its members.In closely contested cases, there will always be a majority except where there is a vacancy or absence of a member. Currently, we have 8 members of the Supreme Court and this means that some cases may not be able to be decided because of a tie vote, meaning a 4-4 vote.Simply stated, the Supreme Court cannot hand down decisions in cases in which its members disagree. An incomplete Supreme Court can hamper the Court from doing its job.
The courts don't appeal cases; whichever side lost at trial may file an appeal, if there are legitimate grounds for doing so. Generally, the process involves little more than filling out some paperwork with the clerk of court.
No. He does not decide who wins cases. Under the constitution the judiciary is a separate branch of government. He can change the makeup of the court by appointing judges that agree with his views. By doing the federal court and Supreme Court decisions will influence the cases that they hear.
No, you have to follow established court procedures. Once a decision has been made, you can file an appeal if you have a basis for doing so, but you really should engage the services of a good attorney first.
If you searched up this question you are probably from AEP and are doing Social Studies work that is just too overwhelming. No I do not have the answer so wipe that smile off your face and start searching the web you lazy potato!
The U.S. Supreme Court would not be involved unless the case had already been decided and appealed. For instance, the Mirandadecision came from the Supreme Court because a man wasn't told his rights when he was arrested as dictated by the constitution so the court ruled. It would have to be something along that line.However, the New York Supreme Court is the state's trial court (which would handle a jewelry robbery). If you're doing a crossword or something like that, I'll bet that's what they are referencing.
The US Supreme Court heard the consolidated cases of Brown v. Board of Education on direct appeal from the US District Courts, bypassing the US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts, so there was no decision at the intermediate appellate level.Case Citation:Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)See Related Questions, below, to read about the Supreme Court decision.