Why does the Supreme Court hear only a few cases?

The justices of the court choose most of the cases reviewed on the basis of whether there is a substantial and applicable question of Federal/Constitutional law involved.

Before a case is accepted for possible review there must be clear evidence that the trial court "grievously erred" in some manner.
-----------------------------------------------------

That's not true at all. As a practical matter, the Justices only hear those cases they want to hear. Virtually every case brought before them on a petition for a writ of certiorari raises a substantial question of federal or constitutional law, because they can't hear cases that don't. In many cases, the appellate court didn't err (what the trial court did is generally irrelevant; the appellate court is supposed to fix the trial court's mistakes but often doesn't); quite often, there is a conflict between the circuits (e.g., the First Circuit ruled "X," while the Second, Third, and Tenth ruled "not X"), which the Court wants to resolve (some conflicts have been left for decades). In short, most certiorari petitions could be granted.

Bottom line, it comes down to a simple vote: If four Justices want to hear the case, the whole Court hears the case. That's why you saw them take on trivial issues like whether the words "under God" had to be included in the Pledge of Allegiance, and why Anna Nicole got cert while the rest of you did not. If you don't have a REAL SEXY ISSUE for them to decide, you might as well save your money.

As a general rule, the Court doesn't do error correction, and it doesn't review unpublished opinions (see http://www.nonpublication.com for an explanation of what these are). If the Court grants cert in an unpublished opinion, there is a 100% chance the decision will be overturned.

First answer by Malibu Ken. Last edit by Malibu Ken. Contributor trust: 30 [recommend contributor]. Question popularity: 33 [recommend question]