[rolling_stone]

The rule of four is not required by the Constitution, any law, or even the Supreme Court’s own published rules.[2] Rather, it is a custom that has been observed since the Court was given discretion over which appeals to hear by the Judiciary Act of 1891, Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four

[jamese777]

The rule of four is not required by the Constitution, any law, or even the Supreme Court’s own published rules.[2] Rather, it is a custom that has been observed since the Court was given discretion over which appeals to hear by the Judiciary Act of 1891, Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four

---

The Roberts Court has abided by the tradition of utilizing the Rule of Fourn in deciding which appeals to accept, without exception.

[Labyrinthos]

The rule of four is not required by the Constitution, any law, or even the Supreme Court’s own published rules.[2] Rather, it is a custom that has been observed since the Court was given discretion over which appeals to hear by the Judiciary Act of 1891, Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988.

I know that, and I have no reason to believe that the Court will abandon or modify that customary rule to either grant or deny certiorari in this case or any other case in the foreseeable future. It's not going to happen.