The original contention was that Congress could strip the Supreme Court of the power to interpret the Constitution (post 17). I guess we'll just have to see how things play out if they ever try.
belercous said:But Congress can simply strip jurisdiction from the court so it may not even hear the case to begin with.
And actually, the jurisdictional issue in Brown Shoe was whether the judgment below was a final judgment for the purpose of the appeal to the Supreme Court.belercous said:...Congress grants "personal" jurisdiction (See Brown Shoe v. U.S.)....
[1] As far as my words, everything but what was in quotations was in my words. That's the way we do things when discussing cases. We quote exact words.belercous said:....What did the decision mean? In real speak? Your words.
Why exactlly did SCOTUS say that jurisdiction was proper? How did the plaintiff get jurisdiction over Brown Shoe?
You totally missed the point of jurisdiction....
belercous said:GC70; Congress has plenary, not merely substantial, control of all federal courts below SCOTUS.
The Theory of Plenary Congressional Control
Unlike its original jurisdiction, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is subject to ‘‘exceptions and regulations’’ prescribed by Congress, and the jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts is subject to congressional prescription. Additionally, Congress has power to regulate modes and practices of proceeding on the part of the inferior federal courts. Whether there are limitations to the exercise of these congressional powers, and what the limitations may be, are matters that have vexed scholarly and judicial interpretation over the years, inasmuch as congressional displeasure with judicial decisions has sometimes led to successful efforts to ‘‘curb’’ the courts and more frequently to proposed but unsuccessful curbs. Supreme Court holdings establish clearly the breadth of congressional power, and numerous dicta assert an even broader power, but that Congress may through the exercise of its powers vitiate and overturn constitutional decisions and restrain the exercise of constitutional rights is an assertion often made but not sustained by any decision of the Court.
The first thing one is taught in law school is you don't sue poor people.
Maybe where you practice, but I've never heard that expression in my career.belercous said:...Asking for a continuance under Rule 1 of the court ias a colloquialism; it means the client hasn't paid his fee yet...
[1] First, over 30 years after law school, I'm hardly going to remember the first cases taught in my Civil Procedure class.belercous said:...Brown Shoe was all about in personam jurisdiction. One of the first cases taught in civil procedure. Sure looks like a cut & paste job, why didn't you ju7st say Brown Shoe dealt with personal jurisdiction, obtained by "minimal contact" with a state. ...
I'm sure that was the first thing you may have learned in law school, and it is certainly important. But as Girodin pointed out, not everyone's "first lesson in law school" is going to be the same.belercous said:...The first thing one is taught in law school is you don't sue poor people. All you do is waste your time, $, and effort as they are judgement-proof. Do I need to explain what judgement-proof means?...
Nope, can't say I remember that. However, I did just look it up, and it is interesting. And BTW, it's "Carolene" not "Caroline."belercous said:...Ever hear of footnote 4 in the Caroline Products case? The case was about oleo margarine and really not very interesting. Footnote 4 became the basis for many civil rights challenges later on. Kind of a biggie. I first learned about it in college as an undergrad....
Brown Shoe dealt with personal jurisdiction, obtained by "minimal contact" with a state.
[2] The Supreme Court decision in Brown Shoe v. U. S., and as I have cited, had nothing whatsoever to do with personal jurisdiction. That was not an issue in the Supreme Court decision. Here's a link to the decision, and you're welcome to try to find anything about personal jurisdiction: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr.
My J.D. is from St. Louis University School of Law.
Yes, I'm familiar with the concept of only undertaking work that is likely to pay or for clients who can pay their bills. My practice was the way I earned a living, put food on the table, put a roof over our heads and built up a nest egg to retire on.belercous said:They taught us that because it would save us a lot of time, money, and effort. "Getting back" at people who are pretty much losers in life is a waste of resources anyway. I wouldn't bother, but there are idealists out there, and people who are just flat-out vindictive. Many people who begin the study of law are idealists. They think they can change the world, get back at the bully who took their girl, etc., etc....
What are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything?belercous said:...Yet, I see it go on all the time. Friends of mine who get behind on their credit-card bills, and in general, just are not good with money, get sued. Most of these people have nothing to take, but Mr.Visa sues them anyway. Well, the judgment is good for 10 years. 10 years from now, most of these people still have nothing. The ones that will, I advise them to answer the summons.
Go to court (the worst they can do is to pay their bill), and don't say a word until it is time for the trial. Let the plaintiff's attorney put on his show. Then, without stipulating that the debt is valid, demand that the plaintiff produce all the witnesses to ensure the chain of evidence is unbroken. This means that the plaintiff's attorney must produce the person who handled the account at Visa (M/C, Amex, etc.), who then tranfered the delinquent account to Joe collectoin agency, the person who handled the account at Joe collection agency, down the line.
They can't do it, due to logistics. Case dismissed. It does work, and quite well. No lies have been told, all that a defendant is asking is for the plaintiff to prove his case. Do you really think that Bank of whereever is going to send whoever handled the account from Delaware or N. Dakota half way across the country to defend a suit they have already sold for pennies on the dollar? ...
There's no doubt in my mind that he's thinking of International Shoe.Girodin said:I have a feeling that in addition to acting like a pompous jerk he was thinking of international shoe which is a case that anyone who passed Civil Procedure should be familiar with....
belercous said:Take a class on American government at your local college, you will be surprised about some things, and it is interesting too.