In a case before the SCOTUS are justices required to consider only the arguments presented by the parties involved or can they say for example “the points argued by side A are insufficient or irrelevant, however the real issue is XYZ and that carries adequate merit to rule for side A”.
They can, and often do, consider whatever they want, including the oral arguments, the briefs from the litigating parties, amicus briefs from interested parties, prior precedents, case law from other jurisdictions, congressional reports, the Federalist papers, yadda yadda yadda. Of course, many of these same sources will be cited by the attorneys arguing each side.
Thanks - I figured this would be a quick one 
One famous example of this is the Court’s opinion in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), which reversed the previous decision of Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1 (1842) and ended federal common law in diversity cases. Neither side had made that argument or requested that the Court do so, the Court just saw an opportunity to get rid of a bad precedent and did so sua sponte, of their own accord.
One general rule of the SC is a detailed case law summary of facts. However, they can pick and choose as they wish when handing down a decision.
If you read the right cases, you may see notes of X comments, “see Petitioner’s brief, at page 27” or some such words.
Or such as “The State’s brief at p.17 stating XXX is without legal merit”.
Since this one seems to be settled, I’d like to add on a question which might actually be related. Is this the reason behind justices adding their own dissenting opinions? In some cases the dissenting opinions have seemed to make extremely solid remarks (better logic than presented in the consensus opinion) and it makes me wonder what the function of these are. Is it ego placation? Laying the groundwork for overturning the case later? Trying to nudge lower courts to apply the ruling less broadly?
I would think a justice writes a dissenting opinion because that is his/her opinion. Some will write concurring decisions but with a different rationale. These dissenting opinions in many future cases are cited and the prior decisions are overturned based on them.
Not too many notable cases have been reversed, through prior dissent rationale or not.
Other people have already answered so this is probably pointless, but who would be requiring them to do what you are suggesting? There’s no review to their cases, after all.
I assume the dissenting opinions also point areas where the details may not be settled, and better targetted cases may (re)define some intricacies of the decision? (Or at least, you know that some justices may be on your side if you argue a similar case?)
W/regard to next week’s hearings on Obamacare (or I guess any other case for that matter), wouldn’t you think that at least a few of the nine know how they are going to vote, even before hear the oral arguments? After all, they have their own personal ideologies and the briefs were submitted a while back.
I have this bookmarked. Scroll down to par. 8. It discusses, at least of X periods/terms, what Justice’s voted for Certiorari, and then voted with the Majority, and what Justices voted against Certiorari and voted with or against the Majority, etc.
Minds may have been made up sooner than a vote, sure.
http://www.aallnet.org/main-menu/Publications/llj/LLJ-Archives/Vol-92/pub_llj_v92n02/2000-17.pdf
Not sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying there’s no need to justify a decision?
There isn’t, really, apart from tradition.
I didn’t mean to imply there was. Perhaps my wording in the OP could have been better.
Some of the justices surely have strong inclinations as to how they’re going to vote, but oral argument is customary and can indeed make a difference in some cases, on some issues, for some justices, at some times. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. admitted to catching up on his correspondence during oral arguments since he rarely found them useful, but ISTR Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a few years back that oral argument shifted her thinking in a case, a lot or a little, about 10% of the time.
Actually a final judgement to their cases can be attacked vide a Petition for rehearing. Although 99.99 percent of these are dismissed.
Leading directly to another follow-on question:
Are lower courts restricted in the way OP asks?
Judges are certainly required to explain their decisions. Not justify.
The legal rationale or ratio decidendi of a case is the reason given by the judge for deciding the point at issue. Ratio are very important because they establish the Court’s current ruling on the law.
Judgements may also include obiter dicta statements which are not rulings on the point but rather the judge thinking out loud beyond the specific issue. Very useful to lawyers because obiter is a guide to how the Court might treat a similar but different case.
Dissenting judgements are important because they show the Court is not a rubber stamp and that there is an arguable alternative to the final decision. Sometimes in the succeeding decades the minority position becomes the majority. Laws change.
Absolutely not. Judges are expected to know the law and apply it regardless of counsel’s submissions.
Image being in Court and your lawyer has early Alzheimers (but nobody knows). He utterly fails to bring up a known point of law in your favour. Would you expect the Judge to think “tough luck” and rule against you? Would that be in the community’s interests?
Keep in mind that these are NOT stupid people (political jabs aside). The self-nominated Harriet Meirs was run out of town, for example, simply because both sides agreed she did not appear to have the depth of thinking reuired to be a SCOTUS judge. These guys are well aware that they are making history today and for generations to come. Simple pride prevents them from doing something stupid, self-indulgent, and contrary to proper practice.
The phrase “yell fire in a crowded theatre” is still repeated almost 100 years later. Less common knowledge - except in the legal field - is where it comes from… Every schoolchild learns about Dredd Scott. Brown v Board of Education, Miranda, and Roe V Wade (not to mention Gore and Bush) are critical parts of history. Every judge there knows that going from solid precedent to regularly overturning precedent on the political whim of the day in the Supreme Court’s rulings is a recipe for disaster.
They have studied the law all their life. Read any serious legal opinion and there are some very deep considerations of the very fine details of the law, precedents, and why the decision goes the way it does - whether you agree with the conclusion or not. This is not to say they don’t tend to rule the way their convictions or feeling take them, if they can - just that in order to do so, they will not stomp all over 200-plus years of tradition, precedent, and law.
A lower court judge can do whatever he wants, too. However, it can be overturned by a higher court, and the judge can be examined for misconduct if they blatantly abuse the correct process.
A lower court judge is obliged to follow the law and established precedent in making their decision; I remember talking to one lawyer who said that occasionally buried in many rulings overturning lower court rulings is the subtle dig to tell the lower judge to smarten up. One thing smart lawyers/judges are, they are masters of the english language and quite capable of wording any innuendo so it can sound innocent.
Lower courts, like the supreme court, will tend not to ignore precedent but rather to explain why one may apply differently in this particular case. Then, a higher court may critique that logic.