> In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month
A quick search says the court accepts approximately a percent of those.
And AIUI they usually prefer cases where the lower courts disagree with eachother, which I don't think this one is. And it sounds like every court she's been through on the way up has unanimously shot her down.
I rather suspect this should be taken about as seriously as your local sovereign citizen trying to have income taxes declared illegal.
The Roberts Court (especially since Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/ACB) looks out for circuit splits like any other, but it readily accepts (and sometimes telegraphs requests for) cases claiming that the last judicial regime's precedents were wrongly decided on non-originalism paradigms.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the 2022 case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
American Common Law is really puzzling to me, I do understand the history of the system, trade-offs, etc. but it seems to be quite bizarre that laws can be created or dismantled just through whatever is the interpretation of the court at that time. No democratic process whatsoever, pack the Court with a majority leaning into a political ideology and you laws can be changed by 5 people.
It won't ever square in my mind that a Supreme Court would be divided into political affiliations, even less when there's only 2 parties to represent the political views of 300+ million people.
There is a democratic process involved. Supreme Court members are nominated by an elected president and affirmed by an elected Senate. It's democracy at an arm's length, but it's not as if they inherited the positions or got in through force of arms.
But it introduces a fairly obvious winning tactic: devote 100% of your effort to dominating that specific branch, and then you control all future decisions by the others. If you keep an eye on the bottom line, you make just enough allies to control the Court membership. Do that long enough and then 49% of the population simply don't matter any more. Their votes might as well not exist.
That's why you get two parties: each is threatening to do that to the other. Anybody who isn't part of one or the other is already completely irrelevant. Somebody has a majority and they make the rules, forever. It's a 51% attack.
All I can say in its favor is that it seemed like a sufficiently good idea at the time. The failure modes were pretty obvious, but they counted on a majority of people not being willing to completely eliminate the power of the rest. Turns out that was wrong.
A quick search says the court accepts approximately a percent of those.
And AIUI they usually prefer cases where the lower courts disagree with eachother, which I don't think this one is. And it sounds like every court she's been through on the way up has unanimously shot her down.
I rather suspect this should be taken about as seriously as your local sovereign citizen trying to have income taxes declared illegal.