Posted on 08/03/2010 3:00:19 PM PDT by NoGrayZone
No they were seeking an injunction to prevent a duly enacted Law of the State of Arizona from going into effect. They were challenging the very sovereignty of the State of Arizona that the Constitution attempted to protect in the establishment of the "Original Jurisdiction" language.
The doctrine of judicial review has been around since Marbury vs. Madison.
Apparently you have not even read Marbury v. Madison as one of the principle holdings in that case was that any challenges to State action must necessarily be filed with the Supreme Court, which was given the Constitutional grant of Original Jurisdiction. Marshall bemoaned any attempt by congress to grant the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to inferior courts. Marshall would have voided Susan Bolton's order on the grounds that she did not have the Constitutional authority to rule on a case involving the United States versus any of the several states.
If, however, AZ and other states were to sue the US over damages caused by its failure to properly enforce immigration laws, that would be a case of "original jurisdiction," and the case would be required to be addressed by the supreme court.
Really? That appears to be a distinction without a difference. It appears that you are halfway towards an originalist position. IMO that is clearly a step in the right direction.
However, there are literally hundreds of cases where the United States has been sued by the States for one thing or another and virtually none of them have ever started in the Supreme Court. Here is one example. And why is it that none of the 35 States that are suing the Federal Government over the Health Care bill have bothered to file their suits in the Supreme Court under the original jurisdiction rule?
So you and I would agree that the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction to hear those cases based on the plain language of the Constitution.
Regardless, the fact of the matter is that the protection of Original Jurisdiction was not intended to protect the Federal Government from suits by the States as much as it was intended to protect the various states both from each other and an overreaching Federal Government.
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to sue a State and then pick their own judge or their own venue to bring that suit. The Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction" for a darned good reason. It provides a neutral ground for the hearing of the case. As I stated before, the Supreme Court could assign the case to a lower court for preliminary proceedings, but the Supreme Court would have to sign off on any decision made by the lower court under it's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court was not granted appellate jurisdiction in these matters, so any decision on the merits would necessarily have to be considered the final decision of the Supreme Court.
You’re wedded to your ideological position. I’m not going to waste any more time on it.
It is not an ideological position, it is a constitutional position. (One which you tend to agree with at least in regard to lawsuits by the states against the Federal Government).
Frankly, it would appear that it is you who actually has the "ideological" position, since you have failed or refused to argue your position either in regard to the actual language of the constitution or in regard to the statements by the framers as to the actual intent of the framers in putting in the "original jurisdiction" clause.
The fact of the matter is that under my interpretation Susan Bolton could have made the same decision she made and it would have been constitutional if the United States Government had filed its suit in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had assigned the case under their judicial powers to Judge Bolton to make a preliminary ruling which would then have been subject to Supreme Court approval. I would have no objection to such a procedure since it preserves the intent of the founders in granting the Supreme Court "Original Jurisdiction" over the matter.
The problem is that the US Government bypassed the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and shopped for a sympathetic judge (a Clinton appointee) and got it and then got the ruling it wanted without first submitting itself, in deference to the dignity of the State of Arizona, to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
I would think that you and Lurking Libertarian would be put off by this end run around the Constitution, but apparently you and a lot of other progressive freepers think more of precedent than you do with the actual language of the Constitution or the actual intent of the framers.
Cest la vie.
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
I’d punch someone in the face if I was there ,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.