[meyer]

I assume the State Supreme Court ruling is overturning the federal district court judge? If so, very good news, even though it was close (5-4!)

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that the State Supreme court has jurisdiction over a federal district court. However, I think that a judge in Akron ruled in such a way as to make a path to the state court for a very similar case. Thus, the state court had an opportunity to rule on the issue.

Although she claims its constitutional in nature, I don't think that this Clinton-appointee leftist fed judge will (or even can) push the issue. She certainly has no time left on the clock for this election.

[Ruth C]

I think it has something to do with where you appeal cases. I think there is a 'pecking order'. Not the legal term, but I remember hearing about cases that got turned back by Fed Appeals court as 'not ripe' meaning hadn't happened, or hadn't gone through all lower level appeals.

I also think that unless it IS a federal constitutional issue that the Federal Appeals Court does not have jurisdiction over a state constitution. States' Rights.