No. of Recommendations: 5
I can follow how normal trial courts work: establish facts and evidence, try to show if witnesses are truthful, present arguments on both sides limited to the admittable evidence, and decide this particular case. The Supreme Court does none of that. Hypotheticals are the basis of many of the Justices' questions. The underlying case is barely mentioned.
No evidence is presented to Appellate courts, instead the trial court records are used. Appellate courts review the record and make sure that everything was done properly. In Supreme Court cases, hypothetical questions are often more important than the actual case. For example, in a recent case, the Chief Justice seemed angry that the underlying case had already been settled (Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer).
Fake cases are now brought before the Supreme Court, with the goal of setting policy instead of deciding a particular case. This is the latest fake case:
A Supreme Court dispute over a $15,000 IRS bill may be aimed at a never-enacted tax on billionaires
"The original declaration on which the case is built is full of lies"
"There really was no reason for the court to take it on, other than to send a signal to warn off the Congress from passing a billionaire tax"
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-billionai... 