Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Defend Liberty; kevkrom
A couple thoughts. First, and as several have already pointed out, including kevkrom, original does not mean exclusive. Just because the Supreme Court can hear a case first, doesn't necessarily mean it has to. In fact, the legislature, for a variety of reasons, established concurrent jurisdiction for trial courts in cases just like this one - controversies arising between the states - in a piece of legislation called the (I think) Judiciary Act of 1789.

This was a prickly issue, even back then. Finally, after a number of cases, the Court eventually held that indeed trial courts do enjoy concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court even though the Supremes enjoy original jurisdiction, which is why almost without exception, the Supreme Court is not the trial court - again, almost.

Perhaps you don't think that's how it should work. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But jurisprudentially, that is EXACTLY how things do work.

If you would like more information, much can be learned from a familiarization of 28 U.S.C. § 1251, Jurisdiction and Venue.

17 posted on 02/01/2011 12:36:36 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: OldDeckHand
First, and as several have already pointed out, including kevkrom, original does not mean exclusive.Just because the Supreme Court can hear a case first, doesn't necessarily mean it has to.

Please show me wherein Article III Section II the term exclusive is used because I don't see that passage.

In fact, the legislature, for a variety of reasons, established concurrent jurisdiction for trial courts in cases just like this one - controversies arising between the states - in a piece of legislation called the (I think) Judiciary Act of 1789.

In other words you are arguing the Constitution can changed simply by act of Congress instead of the procedures to change the Constitution detailed in Article V via the amendment process.

Perhaps you don't think that's how it should work. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But jurisprudentially, that is EXACTLY how things do work.

It's not me saying how it should work. It is what the Constitution states.
20 posted on 02/01/2011 5:54:45 PM PST by Defend Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson