A quick reading of the quoted sections of the Constitution reveals no reason for me to disbelieve her write up.
At the moment, the 9th Circuit is giving the Governor and State of Arizona a disrespectful slap by saying they cannot hear the appeal until November. This is willful arrogance on the part of the Leftist judiciary. It would be a good hard slap back at them if Arizona did indeed do what is recommended here.
My opinion is that the attorney should amend his appeal to vacate "judge" Bolton's TRO and drop the case for lack of jurisdiction. Let Holder call John Roberts and see if he can get on the Supreme Court schedule with his outrageous strike against America.
Excellent catch!
bookmark
I think I might grab some popcorn...
This might be worth reclassifying as News to put it in Extended News.
The Constituton was written to keep the federal government out of our face. That fact has been lost for many years.
Boy are you wrong.
The district courts also have original jurisdiction in these types of cases.
Congress has clarified the exclusive original jurisdiction to be only disputes between states:
Title 28, Section 1251 of the US Code:
(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.
So yes, the District Court in which Judge Bolton sits has jurisdiction to hear this case.
Very interesting. It makes sense that the Supreme Court should handle such a direct
The entire country is not harmed if a citizen is somehow reported to ICE, so how can the federal government have standing? Has it happened in RI and what were the consequences?
bookmark
Original jurisdiction does not mean that the Supreme Court has to hear it first. It just means that it can hear it first. What I have not understood is why the state did not seek to move it to the Supreme Court. There may be a Supreme Court rule of court that prevents it. This clause is not obscure; it is known by any first year law student. So, there must be a reason why Arizona’s lawyers did not seek to have the case sent to the Supremes. I just don’t know what it is.
what’s your take on this?
Constitution seems clear to me.
Why doesn’t Arizona object?
Actually, I am waiting for some governor with guts to say, "I appreciate the court weighing in on this important issue. However, our government is based on a balance of power, and the Executive branch is co-equal to the Legislative and Judicial branches in that regard. Therefore, regardless of any rulings the court may issue, as Chief Executive I will continue to act in the best interests of my state and in accordance with my Constitutionally defined duties. Thank you. Thank you very much."
Yeah sure... I'll see a governor with guts someday.
Who could ever forget Governor Jeb Bush cowering before a county probate judge in the Schiavo case?
I think I'll go throw up now. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Say, wouldn’t this same argument hold true for the Proposition 8 case?