More Recommended Reading
As we mentioned earlier, Jeremy Gunn, director of the national ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, is a guest blogger this week on TPMCafe. Today's entry, about intelligent design and slipping science standards in the United States, is an interesting perspective on the issue.
And as always, for a unique take on the trial, check out the latest from the York Daily Record's Mike Argento, Dover statement bombs, even in Canada. It's probably the only story on the trial to date to include the phrase "a rat’s hindquarters."
Finally, somehow we missed the York Dispatch's article on Monday speculating on whether or not this case will end up in the US Supreme Court.
And as always, for a unique take on the trial, check out the latest from the York Daily Record's Mike Argento, Dover statement bombs, even in Canada. It's probably the only story on the trial to date to include the phrase "a rat’s hindquarters."
Finally, somehow we missed the York Dispatch's article on Monday speculating on whether or not this case will end up in the US Supreme Court.
posted by ACLU of Pennsylvania at 10/13/2005 05:39:00 PM
4 Comments:
It's my understanding that the justices decide together.
The justices all vote after hearing the case. The majority select one of themselves to write the opinion, which then has the effect of law. The minority justices may choose to write one or more dissenting opinions, which are a matter of record (and may influence future decisions).
Often the justices will simply choose not to hear a case (80 to 1 in fact).
Each Justice reviews all appeals and if four of them vote to hear a case then it is scheduled for oral argument. After the arguments, they vote on the decision and the majority and minority write opinions.
On what basis would the supreme court take this case?
Has anything been presented here that threatens Edwards?
I think not
Post a Comment
<< Home