To: King Prout
Rush reporting he doesn't think USSC will take the case.
They refused to take the New Jersey case with Torrecelli saying it was a state's issue.
156 posted on
09/15/2003 10:50:07 AM PDT by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: Peach
But the 9th is a FEDERAL court, so they wouldn't be overturning a state decision if the USSC takes it.
To: Peach
They refused to take the New Jersey case with Torrecelli saying it was a state's issue.If there's a FEDERAL COURT ruling, it's a FEDERAL ISSUE.
167 posted on
09/15/2003 10:51:53 AM PDT by
Poohbah
(Hee Haw was supposed to be a television show...not the basis of a political movement...)
To: Peach
There's a big difference, though... the NJ case was not a federal court action, it was a state supreme court... I think there is a better likelihood of the Supremes taking this.
172 posted on
09/15/2003 10:52:12 AM PDT by
mwl1
To: Peach
State issue, yes, but the Toricelli ruling was from the SCONJ, whereas this is from a federal court. I've not seen this ruling, but I should think it pretends to be based on federal equal protection grounds. I think SCOTUS will take it.
174 posted on
09/15/2003 10:52:40 AM PDT by
j.havenfarm
(In California we prefer ideological purity over victory. And you're scum if you disagree.)
To: Peach
Apples and oranges. In NJ, it was the state supreme court that issued the decision. In CA, it is a federal court, which is directly subordinate to SCOTUS.
To: Peach
they might if looked at as violating the people's right to petition.
To: Peach
They refused to take the New Jersey case with Torrecelli saying it was a state's issue. Applese and Organges. If it's a "states" issue why did a Federal Court just intervene?
220 posted on
09/15/2003 10:58:16 AM PDT by
Smogger
To: Peach
The NJ case was appealed from the State Supreme court directly to SCOTUS, not from a Federal Appeals Court. I do not know if this makes any difference, but it seems to me it should.
To: Peach
I'd say what was on my mind about what needs to be done about these damned activist judges, but doing so would get FR and me in hot water.
224 posted on
09/15/2003 10:58:52 AM PDT by
King Prout
(people hear and do not listen, see and do not observe, speak without thought, post and not edit)
To: Peach
I agree with Rush on this. The SCOTUS don't want to get involved in elections again, especially state ones.
226 posted on
09/15/2003 10:59:04 AM PDT by
rintense
(9-11-01: Never Forget.)
To: Peach
"They refused to take the New Jersey case with Torrecelli saying it was a state's issue."
And this is why I believe they will take the case the 9th is a fedreal court while this is a state issue.
314 posted on
09/15/2003 11:11:21 AM PDT by
Kadric
To: Peach
The Torch case was ruled by the NJSC, if I recall. The 9th circuit is a federal court and I don't think that SCOTUS will have any fear of overturning them. No federalism issues here.
To: Peach
How can they say they'll refuse to take the case, saying it is a "state issue," when it's a federal court that has mucked up the process?
557 posted on
09/15/2003 12:20:17 PM PDT by
My2Cents
("I'm the party pooper..." -- Arnold in "Kindergarten Cop.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson