The rule of four is a Supreme Court of the United States practice that permits four of the nine justices to grant a writ of certiorari. This is done specifically to prevent a majority of the Court from controlling the Court's docket.
The rule of four is not required by the Constitution, any law, or even the Supreme Court's own published rules. Rather, it is a custom that has been observed since the Court was given discretion over which appeals to hear by the Judiciary Act of 1891, Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988.
The "Rule of Four" has been explained by various Justices in judicial opinions throughout the years. For example, Justice Felix Frankfurter described the rule as follows: "The ‘rule of four’ is not a command of Congress. It is a working rule devised by the Court as a practical mode of determining that a case is deserving of review, the theory being that if four Justices find that a legal question of general importance is raised, that is ample proof that the question has such importance. This is a fair enough rule of thumb on the assumption that four Justices find such importance on an individualized screening of the cases sought to be reviewed."
Although the Rule of Four in general has remained constant for some time -- i.e., that it takes at least four affirmative votes to grant a petition for certiorari -- the ancillary aspects of it have changed throughout the years and Justices have not always agreed about these aspects.
The rule of four is not required by the Constitution, any law, or even the Supreme Court's own published rules. Rather, it is a custom that has been observed since the Court was given discretion over which appeals to hear by the Judiciary Act of 1891, Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988.
The "Rule of Four" has been explained by various Justices in judicial opinions throughout the years. For example, Justice Felix Frankfurter described the rule as follows: "The ‘rule of four’ is not a command of Congress. It is a working rule devised by the Court as a practical mode of determining that a case is deserving of review, the theory being that if four Justices find that a legal question of general importance is raised, that is ample proof that the question has such importance. This is a fair enough rule of thumb on the assumption that four Justices find such importance on an individualized screening of the cases sought to be reviewed."
Although the Rule of Four in general has remained constant for some time -- i.e., that it takes at least four affirmative votes to grant a petition for certiorari -- the ancillary aspects of it have changed throughout the years and Justices have not always agreed about these aspects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four
Not one of the 114 ‘justices’ that sat on the SCOTUS since 1789 ever ruled to diminish the federal government’s authority over private sector Americans even though favorable rulings would have reaffirmed the Constitution’s original intent.
On the bright side the myth that supreme court judges are imbued with integrity and infallibility the minute they are sworn in has been debunked for all time. In short: Coronavirus changed the custom to the Rule of Nine.
Fauci notes that the frighteningly high fatality numbers we were hearing for COVID-19 were sure to be grossly inflated because “the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases.”
Hence, Fauci explained to his fellow experts:
The overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%).
Choosing a more brazen liar to lead the nation’s response to COVID-19 would have probably been impossible.
It’s long past time these suicidal measures Fauci has gaslit the nation into adopting were ended. But it’s also time that we faced the ugly truth that the deception was intentional.
Fauci pushed the entire country into an economic shutdown and got most of us confined to our homes by blatantly lying about COVID-19’s deadliness. He didn’t believe a word of the scare-mongering BS he peddled to us. And he didn’t dare try to palm it off on his peers. It’s right there in black-and-white in the pages of the New England Journal of Medicine.
So, if you’re still inclined to defend the man who terrorized America into accepting a suicidal abridgment of our most basic rights with his lies, your problem isn’t COVID-19.
It’s Stockholm Syndrome.
New CDC Figures Show Fauci’s Dishonest COVID-19 Projections Were Garbage
Posted at 6:00 pm on May 23, 2020
by Michael Thau
https://www.redstate.com/michael_thau/2020/05/23/842684/
Posted at 6:00 pm on May 23, 2020
by Michael Thau
https://www.redstate.com/michael_thau/2020/05/23/842684/
NOTE: None of the parasites on any level of government lost a day’s pay because of the lockdown, while millions of private sector Americans were locked out permanently.
Coronavirus proved that the High Court refuses to defend the original Bill of Rights against governors, mayors, bureaucrats, and every greedy dirty little moralist that inhaled a whiff of political power.
From this day forward I will try and remember to call supreme court lawyers judges instead of justices since they have nothing to do with justice. They sure as hell have nothing to do with the Constitution whenever they decide cases involving the Rights of private sector Americans and government revenues.
My decision to make the change was triggered by the coronavirus fraud; i.e., scare tactics employed by federal, state, and local government officials resulted in the government’s total control over Rights and revenues to the detriment of freedom-loving Americans.
Substituting judge for justice is the same principal as this one:
Seven or eight years ago I began referring to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party because I refuse to associate today’s Democrats with democratic ideals. No one can make the case that the Democrat Party is in favor of individual liberties, while just about anyone can easily make the case that the Democrat Party is all about collectivism.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...rowing-Mud-On-Democracy&p=3461890#post3461890
