I could be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, the Supreme Court is around to uphold the constitution and make decisions on issues that have no precedent.
As more cases happen and more precedents establish. Will the Supreme Court no longer be necessary?
Are there any year to year numbers that show cases seen by the SC?
No, because society always changes, and so new legal questions will always arise. Also, new laws constantly get introduced, which the courts need to interpret within the framework of the existing legislation and case law.
Also, precedents get overturned. “Separate but equal”, for example.
During the recent SSM kerfluffle, I read somewhere that 10,000 cases per year are reach the SCOTUS. Only 75-90 are heard, the rest are rejected and the lower court decision stands.
No lack of work.
You will find this article interesting.
Explaining the Supreme Court’s Shrinking Docket
Since this is not a factual question, let’s move it to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Huh?
Not to mention new technology putting new twists on old questions.
No, it really isn’t. That’s part of its duties, but that’s also part of the duties of every lower level of federal court.
The role of the Supreme Court is the same as that of any other Appellate Court, to review decisions made by lower courts. Those may include interpretations of the Constitution but much more typically involve interpretations of legislative law. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, true, but anything one court says can be overruled by a later court. Precedent is not overturned lightly but nothing in law mandates that a precedent is carved in stone.
I once said that the entire history of the Supreme Court in the 20th century is the overturning of previous Supreme Court decisions. That’s hyperbole, obviously, but read about the Court from Brandeis on and the magnitude of those reversals will overwhelm you.
You came up just short. Let me nudge it that one last step.
You are wrong. The SCOTUS is also charged with interpreting laws when there is a legal challenge. The recent, controversial, case involving Hobby Lobby was a case of interpreting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, not the 1st Amendment.
When people stop looking for validation and agreement for their sense of grievance - that’s when courts become redundant.
In our real world, most court cases are about nitpicky interpretations of what companies can do under the relevant legislation. And the rest are about what governmental bodies can do under the relevant legislation.
Please don’t look for validation of or agreement with your statement. You won’t find any.