Re: Silveira DENIED Certiorari

Morton Davis wrote:
> "JerryMouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> Morton Davis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Further, when a REAL 2nd Amendment case (one not based on
>>>> cosmetics) gets to SCOTUS, the Supreme Court will have to take
>>>> into account the rulings of the 9th Circuit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why? They are not required to do that: According to Title 28,
>>> Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court
>>> Justice takes the following oath:
>>>   "I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer
>>> justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor
>>> and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially
>>> discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE]
>>> under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me
>>> God.''
>>
>> It is the obligation of the Supreme Court to harmonize divergent
>> rulings amongst the circuits. That's what they do for a living.
>>
>>
> CITE.

Have I ever lied to you?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ctrules/rulesofthecourt.pdf

Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari

Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial
discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for
compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully
measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the
Court considers:

(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with
the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important
matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts
with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from
the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a
departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's
supervisory power;

(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question
in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last
resort or of a United States court of appeals;

(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an
important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled
by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that
conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.