242

When it comes to applying justice, it is even more important that people shouldn't be treated as a number. I am saying this because of what was done to lower the number of cases taken at the final level. I am not talking here about my case since I think that mine fits more than the current restrictions. What I am talking about is the issue of why would people  who have the power to rule themselves see it that easy to ignore the right of anybody and correcting injustice on him/her even if it happened despite good faith work by lower courts on an issue that is not of national importance and there is no constitutional obligation to take the case, in other words any case?

What could be more important than giving people their rights? What could be more deserving to have resources being spent on it than that? If two much cases would have reached the final level of courts if it was obligated to take all cases then you may need to consider adding another level. But ignoring all those possible injustices in this way seems far from being the right or respectable thing to do in a democratic system. Why is there only two levels of federal courts before the final court? How much would we lose if we add a third level in comparison to what we spend on much less important things? Is anyone convince that this level of attempting to give people their rights through a judicial system is the best we can do?