Question for Soc

I don't think there is a way for lower fed courts to review this law. IF a state supreme court says that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution then the Supreme Court COULD grant cert to decide if that were true. Not likely they would see it the same way.
 
it would be hard to see how one part of the constitutional body of government can write out the powers of another. I don't see removing judicial review possible.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
it would be hard to see how one part of the constitutional body of government can write out the powers of another. I don't see removing judicial review possible.
Click to expand...
you can't like I said the only way the feds are going to get this kind of case is if a state supreme court says that the law or state constitutional amendment violates the federal constitution. Then the SCOTUS will review that decision and find that it doesn't and that will be that. Unless we lose one of the real conservative justices from the court they will still have the advantage.
 
Socrtease said:
you can't like I said the only way the feds are going to get this kind of case is if a state supreme court says that the law or state constitutional amendment violates the federal constitution. Then the SCOTUS will review that decision and find that it doesn't and that will be that. Unless we lose one of the real conservative justices from the court they will still have the advantage.
Click to expand...

You're not making any sense. Do you really think that the USSC is going to find it constitutional that the legislative body can write an entire field of law and exclude the courts from having any jurisdiction on it, and that they will rubber stamp it?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
You're not making any sense. Do you really think that the USSC is going to find it constitutional that the legislative body can write an entire field of law and exclude the courts from having any jurisdiction on it, and that they will rubber stamp it?
Click to expand...
Congress is empowered by the constitution to limit the appellate jurisdiction of all federal courts.
 
It's not for the supremes. But Congress can write ANY law and then say that certain issues are not reviewable by the lower federal courts and the Supremes can do nothing about that.
 
Socrtease said:
It's not for the supremes. But Congress can write ANY law and then say that certain issues are not reviewable by the lower federal courts and the Supremes can do nothing about that.
Click to expand...

true, but that doesn't strip judicial review, it just means that any challenge on the federal side would be directly to the supremes.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
true, but that doesn't strip judicial review, it just means that any challenge on the federal side would be directly to the supremes.
Click to expand...
correct. And the only way they get that there is on direct appeal from a state supreme court that says that the law violates the federal consitution.
 
Socrtease said:
correct. And the only way they get that there is on direct appeal from a state supreme court that says that the law violates the federal consitution.
Click to expand...

i might be understanding your position then, you're saying that writing out jurisdictional oversight by lower courts prevents an individual from having standing in federal courts?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i might be understanding your position then, you're saying that writing out jurisdictional oversight by lower courts prevents an individual from having standing in federal courts?
Click to expand...
Correct, you cannot bring the case as a case of first instant in the federal court if Congress has written that out of their jurisdiction.
 
Socrtease said:
Correct, you cannot bring the case as a case of first instant in the federal court if Congress has written that out of their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

hmmm, that sounds very unconstitutional as well, considering that it writes out part of the first amendment. I'd challenge it on that alone.
 
So, let's say the California court strikes down prop 8 as a violation of the US constitution.

We'd need all liberal justices to agree with us and Anthony Kennedy. It would be a pretty tough appeal, unless Kennedy retires and Obama replaces him with a straight liberal.


Pardon the pun.
 
Watermark said:
So, let's say the California court strikes down prop 8 as a violation of the US constitution.

We'd need all liberal justices to agree with us and Anthony Kennedy. It would be a pretty tough appeal, unless Kennedy retires and Obama replaces him with a straight liberal.


Pardon the pun.
Click to expand...
Yeah that is about what you would need. Cause Kennedy ain't going that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top