The Supreme Court, which receives nearly 150 petitions per week, called cert petitions, must carefully select the cases on which it wishes to devote its time and effort (Savage 981). If they didn't select them carefully, the nine judges would quickly be overwhelmed. So they set up a program to sort through court cases to select the small number they will discuss. A few criteria are used to judge whether or not a case will go to trial. The first is whether the lower courts decided the case based on another Supreme Court decision, as they will investigate those in order to uphold or reverse the conclusion they reached in their trial. Another problem is party alignment: Sometimes judges choose cases that align with their party's beliefs, such as trying to get a death row inmate not sentenced to death. They also make claims about the “life” of the case – the Supreme Court only hears “real” cases – they are not trying to go back in time and rethink a case that has long been decided (Savage 981). Finally, they like to deal with cases in which the lower courts have not ruled among themselves - these cases may have to do with interpretations of the law that have been left to the lower courts and which should be specifically defined by the Supreme Court ( Savage 982). ).The process of judging these criteria goes as follows: First, a company or organization that loses an appeal in the U.S. court system is allowed to file a petition, called a “cert petition” (Savage 981). These petitions explain in thirty pages or less the process, opinions, and decision of the case. These are then given to coroners, who create a “certificate memo”. This is created when the clerk has...... middle of paper ...... was not accepted by many judges of the Court. One of the concurring decisions was that because information acquired through the Stored Communications Act had to be obtained with a warrant, the Stored Communications Act was unconstitutional. This was argued because, for ISPs to collect information on everyone who uses their services, they would have to present a warrant to everyone they serve, and they did not yet have probable cause. The case ended with a ruling that the government had violated Warshak's 4th Amendment rights and that any obtaining of information through the Stored Communications Act (deemed legal) should be obtained with a warrant . This confirmed Katz v. US to say that because Warshak used a private means of communication for his correspondence, a warrant had to be obtained to request the emails from the ISP..