Posted on 02/19/2019 7:47:17 PM PST by veracious
Why do We-The-People and DC, not obey USA law regarding SCOTUS original jurisdiction in current crucial Federal court proceedings? SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, when a State is a party in a court proceeding against DC law.
Original jurisdiction means _only_ jurisdiction. No other court has authority to hear, much less decide the case.
Article 3, section 2: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”
Further, it appears obvious at law and by reason that the only element of US Judiciary which is an equal governmental branch to POTUS and Congress, is SCOTUS. This because SCOTUS, POTUS and Congress are created by USConstitution. Lower Judicial (Federal) courts are created by Congress. Congress cannot create something which is higher than itself or POTUS.
Additionally, SCOTUS is not above POTUS or Congress. SCOTUS is allowed to adjudicate law, created by Congress; it is equal to Congress. Pure disagreements between equal branches of US government have limited remedies. Congress may defund operation or impeach either POTUS, or Judiciary officers. Why We-The-People, Congress and POTUS have allowed Judicial supremacy is a matter which must be reconsidered. Or USA will _never_ recover it's representative Republic again. Never.
Does SCOTUS have any recourse to reigning in rogue lower courts usurping its authority? Otherwise I am afraid there is no downside to a district court announcing the Emergency is unconstitutional, just to make news....
Does SCOTUS have any recourse to reigning in rogue lower courts usurping its authority? Otherwise I am afraid there is no downside to a district court announcing the Emergency is unconstitutional, just to make news....
Does SCOTUS have any recourse to reigning in rogue lower courts usurping its authority? Otherwise I am afraid there is no downside to a district court announcing the Emergency is unconstitutional, just to make news....
Does SCOTUS have any recourse to reigning in rogue lower courts usurping its authority? Otherwise I am afraid there is no downside to a district court announcing the Emergency is unconstitutional, just to make news....
Sorry.
/s
The problem is the US Attorney General doesn’t argue this point. When a state drags the executive into a circuit court, they need to argue that the court has no jurisdiction.
If they did that, this constant lawfare would end.
There is a difference between original jurisdiction and exclusive original jurisdiction. The Constitution does not grant exclusive original jurisdiction over state-part cases to the Supreme Court. Its original jurisdicition is concurrent with other courts.
Of course it does. The Supreme Court can grant certiorari and reverse the lower court’s ruling.
Your point is spot on.
The Attorney General doesn’t make that argument because it would be a frivolous argument. Article III does not vest exclusive jurisdiction over these cases in the Supreme Court, and Congress vested the district courts with jurisdiction over these cases in the Judiciary Act, which the Constitution empowers Congress to do.
Thanks for bringing your obvious legal acumen to this thread.
Clarence Thomas has talked about doing this. Maybe he’s waiting for one more reliable constitutionalist.
Yes: it’s the law, not the Constitution. Though the Constitution allows it.
Would be nice to change the law so the lower courts didn’t put out these injunctions willy-nilly.
Have no idea how that could reasonably be done.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised concerns Tuesday about the increasingly common use of nationwide injunctions issued by federal trial court judges to block laws and policies.
It has been a favorite tactic of liberal activist groups that fancy themselves part of the so-called resistance confronting President Donald Trump. If plaintiffs can get a U.S. District Court judge to grant an injunction and apply it nationwide, they can gum up Trump’s policies for months or longer — even if they ultimately lose the underlying case.
In sum, universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious,” the justice wrote. “If federal courts continue to issue them, this court is duty-bound to adjudicate their authority to do so.”
Some legal scholars have argued that it is improper for a single federal judge to block government action far beyond his jurisdiction except in extraordinary cases.
https://www.lifezette.com/2018/06/justice-thomas-warns-against-power-grab-by-district-courts/
If they do, Trump just has to pull out his copy of the Constitution and show them that ONLY the SCOTUS can hear it. It seems the states that jumped on this lawsuit have screwed themselves up as they cannot tie the case up in lower courts for years.
> There is a difference between original jurisdiction and > exclusive original jurisdiction. The Constitution does
> not grant exclusive original jurisdiction over state-part
> cases to the Supreme Court. Its original jurisdiction is
> concurrent with other courts.
This is a legal precedence or a scholar commentary? I’m able to read USConstitution; I’m able to read law; where does the law say what the above comment claims.
Precedence and scholars are the establishment, the box we’ve been forced into. We need to reconsider our captivity and the false concepts which lead to destruction.
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.