Does the SCOTUS have original jurisdiction?
‘Does the SCOTUS have original jurisdiction?’
Does not matter since the case is already in multiple appellate Courts.
My understanding is that the Chief Justice of SCOTUS is the chief administrator of the Federal Court system and can take any case once it is in the Federal Court system. Bush V Gore 2000.
Having original jurisdiction does not mean that Scotus MUST take up a case; it means they CAN take up a case.
They might just want the lower courts to do all the leg work on it before they get hold of it.
Is ObamaCare constitutional?
Heck, I don’t think car seat requirements for children is constitutional, so you know I don’t think forcing me to buy insurance is constitutional.
I think the issue at the Scotus will end up being whether or not the required purchase part is severable with the remainder being intact EVEN in the case when Congress doesn’t specifically say so.
IOW, are constitutional parts still active if unconstitutional parts are excised?
That would kill the funding of ObamaCare, but some of the straphanger provisions would last: 26 year old on parents’ care provision, pre-existing condition provision, and the unrelated to healthcare provisions. jmho
Yes
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.
Literally they don’t have either original or appellate jurisdiction if the matter is not under the Federal Constitution.
But as they have usurped to themselves the ability to define what is and is not under the Constitution. Their original and appellate jurisdiction is absolutely endless.
Yes this is laughable upon simple examination in respect to the arrogant claim that we live under a Constitution. The truth is we do not live under a Constitution of any kind, we live under 9 hand picked Oligarchs in black robes.
There are numerous cases in which theses Oligarchs demonstrate and redistribute this fact. Roe V. Wade being among the most commonly sited, but by no means the first nor the last.
You see a true Constitutional system is designed with checks and balances to enforce its limits, precisely because its authors expected its members to try and assume boundless power.
Therefore the the game was not to trust them not to do otherwise, but to keep them from practically achieving the same boundless power. The only possible way to do that is by creating and empowering other forces to challenge them and deny them that arbitrary authority.
It is common in school to just speak of the 3 branches, but the 3 branches are really just 3 aspects of the same goverment, worse still by original design 2 of the branches was to be effectually appointed and/or approved by 1 of them congress.
The presidency was expected to be chosen by congress(Nobody thought that most presidents would win more then 50% of the collage). The court was hand picked by the same president and approved by the Senate.