http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2563606/posts
We have been debating this already. I use the term “debate” loosely.
I think there are 4 or 5 threads, at least 2 on the article in the Canada Free Press.
I will quote your post on that thread — a good analysis from just reading the US Code.
Yes, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over cases between the US and a state; but not exclusive original jurisdiction.
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.
Clause 2: 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. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
However, when State VS State lawsuits arise only SCOTUS has the authority to hear it, this Judge combined 7 different suits into one, including, I think these:
california vs arizona immigration law?
May have to post a run, back shortly.....can anyone verify this as the cases included?
If so, the Judges seems to be out of line.
The article and section refer to Jury trials. Since this was not a jury trial, I don’t think this argument holds water.