As a result, many frivolous appeals are forthright dismissed and the way is open for appeals which disclose substantial questions. That legislation was deemed to be essential to enable the Supreme Court to perform its proper function. No single court of last resort, whatever the number of judges, could dispose of all the cases which arise in this vast country and which litigants would seek to bring up if the right of appeal were unrestricted. Hosts of litigants will take appeals so long as there is a tribunal accessible. In protracted litigation, the advantage is with those who command a long purse.
Unmeritorious appeals cause intolerable delays.
Review by the Supreme Court is thus in the interest of the law, not in the mere interest of the litigants. It is obvious that if appeal as a matter of right is restricted to certain described cases, the question whether the review should be allowed in other cases must necessarily be confined to some tribunal for determination, and of course, with respect to review by the Supreme Court, that court should decide. Granting certiorari is not a matter of favor but of sound judicial discretion. Furthermore, petitions for certiorari are granted if four justices think they should be. A vote by a majority is not required in such cases.