[philman_36]

Personally, IMO, this is why it belongs with the Supreme Court.

Subject matter jurisdiction
The power of a court to adjudicate a particular type of matter and provide the remedy demanded.

[philman_36]

There’s a difference between us. I give you my argument, you make me go look yours up.

[Dr. Franklin]

Personally, IMO, this is why it belongs with the Supreme Court.

This should have been addressed in Texas v. Pennsylvani but wasn't. Now we are grasping at straws that SCOTUS will finally address the matter from a pro se filing.

Subject matter jurisdiction The power of a court to adjudicate a particular type of matter and provide the remedy demanded.

The issue here is Personal Jurisdiction
Why should a Senator from Haiwaii consent to be sued in Utah state court for an act committed, or not committed in Washington, D.C.? The court in Utah lacks personal jurisdiction over him. Yet, the U.S. District Court for D.C. has such jurisdiction under a tort theory of jurisdiction. Enough about the case is novel that there was no reason to try to reinvent the laws of personal jurisdiction as well.