Posted on 04/14/2016 5:42:00 PM PDT by Elderberry
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a civil lawsuit against Texas Attorney General (AG) Ken Paxton and others on Monday, just one week to the day before the Texas AG will represent Texas and lead more than half the states in the nation at the U.S. Supreme Court in the executive amnesty case, the United States v. Texas. The federal government is appealing their loss in the lower district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Attorney General of Texas told Breitbart Texas, “That’s just creative timing by the Obama administration to file a lawsuit one week before I lead a twenty-six state coalition against his illegal immigration order.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Sure, throw the IRS, the EPA etc in the lot. What else are these agencies for other than fronts for Obama’s subversionnof order
If the govmnt finds a friendly liberal court that rules in their favor the tied Supreme Court will 4/4 letting the lower court ruling stand. This is why Scalia is no longer with us. IMHO. Now all the Marxist lower court rulings are going to stand. Just like the dim’s planned. And there are plenty of marxist lower courts thanks to John McCain and his gang of 14 stabbing America and Bill Frist in the back. Still angry about that.
Texas is one of the key reasons a modicum of liberty remains in the United States in the adversity of this administration.
Now all the Marxist lower court rulings are going to stand”
A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
Well researched. Thanks for the good reply. I ask you to consider the behavior of the marxists on the supreme court. They are not constrained by the constitution, their oath of office, nor any previous court decision. Consider the outcome of a case like Heller, especially if the case went through a liberal court like the ninth. There would be a 4/4 decision allowing the lower court decision to stand. There would no longer be an individual right to keep and bear arms. The aim of the marxists for quite some time. For any subject the marxists want to impose upon us all they have to do is get a favorable lower court ruling. We would appeal it to the supremes. The supremes would vote 4/4 and the lower court decision would be upheld. Constitution instantly amended or discarded. At the whim of the marxist supremes and Marxist lower courts. Or am I incorrect about a 4/4 Supreme Court decision? There is only one way to stop them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.