Rubashkin Appeal Request Heads To The Supreme Court

16

shomom-mordechai-rubashkinTomorrow, Reb Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin’s appeal will head to the Supreme Court for consideration. Attorneys Paul Clement and Nathan Lewin will be representing Sholom Mordechai in filing a cert petition to the court, requesting that the court agree to hear this case.

The Supreme Court receives approximately 9,000 such requests each year, They grant about  just seventy of them.

Are are asked to daven for Sholom Mordechai ben Rivka.

{Casriel Bauman-Matzav.com Newscenter}

16 COMMENTS

  1. HaShem could free Sholom in a split second. We have to do our part. If only each of us would recite the whole Tehillim for 40 days, the walls of the prison holding Sholom would come tumbling down.

  2. Rick Santorum, I’m not a lawyer so I can’t give you a professional answer, but your question sounds as if you don’t think Rubashkin’s case has merit? Am I mistaken?

  3. Could somebody explain what this procedure is? 70/9,000 seems like an very peculiar ratio! Do they actually hear all 9,000 requests verbally presented? What is this procedure?
    And what’s that fancy shmancy talk from “poster” Rick Santorum? (It’s not the candidte – so why is he using his name?)

  4. To #3, daven now & ask later. We all know that law, majority of the time, can be interpreted in which ever direction the judge pleases.

    We all must daven to Hashem that he should give the judges the right mind for the sake of justice.

  5. 8. Comment from Rifka
    Time
    April 2, 2012 at 2:35 AM

    Rick Santorum, I’m not a lawyer so I can’t give you a professional answer, but your question sounds as if you don’t think Rubashkin’s case has merit? Am I mistaken?

    Of course I think his case has merit! But the U.S. Supreme Court is not a criminal court — it is a court that can only decide issues based on the U.S. Constitution.

  6. To “Rick Santorum”: On what CONSTITUTIONAL grounds??? You sound like a legal moron. You obviously don’t know the court system from a hole in the wall.
    As far as A Caring Yid’s Q’s: the 70/9,000 ratio is not a given number. A minimum of 4 out of 9 justices must agree to hear the case. Few are granted. It is done through paperwork, not verbally.

  7. 14. Comment from Nice Jewish Boy
    Time
    April 2, 2012 at 3:17 PM

    To “Rick Santorum”: On what CONSTITUTIONAL grounds??? You sound like a legal moron. You obviously don’t know the court system from a hole in the wall.
    As far as A Caring Yid’s Q’s: the 70/9,000 ratio is not a given number. A minimum of 4 out of 9 justices must agree to hear the case. Few are granted. It is done through paperwork, not verbally.

    With all due respect, calling me a “legal moron” doesn’t make you a “nice Jewish boy”.

    And I have a pretty good idea of how the Federal Court system works. I am asking again — is this a case hinging on a statutory provision, which would bring in the Supremacy Clause of Article VI? Which one, the Code of Judicial Conduct? Then fine, But nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution itself has any bearing on this case.

  8. Seems to me “Rick Santorum” has a valid point and I would like someone to address it. If nothing else, printing incorrect statements in the news is to be avoided, as it may hurt the case. It is important to always state exactly what the petition is about, especially when an appeal has already been rejected, and never to write wrong statements e.g. in regards to the merits of the case, which were examined already. Please, let us all be careful. The legal system is a meat-grinder, your lawyer does not necessarily like it, but is there to help. Thank you “Rick Santorum”.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here