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.
Is Remanding McDonald v. Chicago less powerful then Over-turning it?
- Thread starter usmarine0352_2005
- Start date
- Status
belercous
Member
Fiddletown: No SCOTUS would not be even able to hear the case. The Const. most certainly did include qualifications (see Art.III, Sec.2, Cl.2. "...with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.") Please read the Const., all of it. Not just the parts which serve to make your point.
Perhaps you are not well versed in our legal system (this is not to disparage you, not many are, no fault of your own), but a court must have 2types of jurisdiction in order to hear a case; Subject matter (Art.III, Sec2, Cl.1), and "personal" (Art.III, Sec.2, Cl.2). The Const. grants only "subject matter" jurisdiction to SCOTUS. Congress grants "personal" jurisdiction (See Brown Shoe v. U.S.). This is not just my view of our judicial system, it is a fact. Ask any lawyer. The second thing they teach in law school is that you must file your suit in the proper venue (the court needs proper jurisdiction, both types. Actually, 3 since you can't (usually) just go straight to SCOTUS).
GC70; Congress has plenary, not merely substantial, control of all federal courts below SCOTUS. Congress created them, Congress can destroy them. As such, Congress can limit them as they see fit. Correction, my bad, Congress, once granting the courts jurisdiction to hear cases, cannot then limit the court as to the remedies such court can provide. If a court is granted the power to hear the case, the court can provide whatever relief (as long as such relief does not violate the Const.) is needed to make the aggrieved party whole. But Congress can simply strip jurisdiction from the court so it may not even hear the case to begin with. Kind of an all-or-nothing deal. (I don't recall what case this was)
Perhaps you are not well versed in our legal system (this is not to disparage you, not many are, no fault of your own), but a court must have 2types of jurisdiction in order to hear a case; Subject matter (Art.III, Sec2, Cl.1), and "personal" (Art.III, Sec.2, Cl.2). The Const. grants only "subject matter" jurisdiction to SCOTUS. Congress grants "personal" jurisdiction (See Brown Shoe v. U.S.). This is not just my view of our judicial system, it is a fact. Ask any lawyer. The second thing they teach in law school is that you must file your suit in the proper venue (the court needs proper jurisdiction, both types. Actually, 3 since you can't (usually) just go straight to SCOTUS).
GC70; Congress has plenary, not merely substantial, control of all federal courts below SCOTUS. Congress created them, Congress can destroy them. As such, Congress can limit them as they see fit. Correction, my bad, Congress, once granting the courts jurisdiction to hear cases, cannot then limit the court as to the remedies such court can provide. If a court is granted the power to hear the case, the court can provide whatever relief (as long as such relief does not violate the Const.) is needed to make the aggrieved party whole. But Congress can simply strip jurisdiction from the court so it may not even hear the case to begin with. Kind of an all-or-nothing deal. (I don't recall what case this was)
gc70
Member
belercous said:
The CRS analysis discusses a case in which Congress revoked jurisdiction on pending cases that were already underway.
belercous,
As I said, we shall see how things play out if Congress ever tries. BTW, I am a lawyer and practiced law for over 30 years.
As I said, we shall see how things play out if Congress ever tries. BTW, I am a lawyer and practiced law for over 30 years.
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:
In Brown Shoe, Brown Shoe Company sought a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from an order of the District Court based on 15 USC 29 allowing for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from a final judgment of the District Court in an anti-trust case in which the United States is the complainant. (Brown Shoe v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, at 304-305). And although both parties agreed that the District Court judgment was a final judgment and therefore directly appealable to the Supreme Court, the Court recognized that jurisdiction could not be conferred by mere consent of the parties and that, therefore, the Court needed to address the question of whether the District Court judgment was a final judgment for the purposes of appeal:
"...However, the mere consent of the parties to the Court's consideration and decision of the case cannot, by itself, confer jurisdiction on the Court. See American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U. S. 6, 17-18; People's Bank v. Calhoun, 102 U. S. 256, 260-261; Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch 126, 127. Therefore, a review of the sources of the Court's jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry appropriate to the disposition of every case that comes before us...." (Brown Shoe, 305-306)
At issue was whether the District Court judgment was a final judgment thus conferring jurisdiction for the appeal, and the Supreme Court saw that as a question for judicial determination:
"...The requirement that a final judgment shall have been entered in a case by a lower court before a right of appeal attaches has an ancient history in federal practice, first appearing in the Judiciary Act of 1789.[footnote omitted] With occasional modifications, the requirement has remained a cornerstone of the structure of appeals in the federal courts.[footnote omitted] The Court has adopted essentially practical tests for identifying those judgments which are, and those which are not, to be considered "final."[citations omitted] ..."(Brown Shoe, at 306)
The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction was proper:
"...We think the decree of the District Court in this case had sufficient indicia of finality for us to hold that the judgment is properly appealable at this time. ...."(Brown Shoe, at 308)
belercous
Member
Fiddletown; You may be an attorney, but you certainly don't demonstrate it by your lack of understanding of the Constitutuion. Sorry, but you really don't seem to have Con. Law down.
By the way, since you are a lawyer, and I won't question that assertion, although I doubt it, please answer me 3 of the following 4 questions so as to verify your cred.
1.) What does it mean when an attorney asks the court for a continuance under Rule 1?
2.) What is the first thing you are taught in law school?
3.) What S.C. case had dicta which first served to protect minorities in later cases?
4.) When you go to court, what do you want to prevail?
Any 1L student can answer all of these questions, you only need 3. Use Google if you need it.
By the way, since you are a lawyer, and I won't question that assertion, although I doubt it, please answer me 3 of the following 4 questions so as to verify your cred.
1.) What does it mean when an attorney asks the court for a continuance under Rule 1?
2.) What is the first thing you are taught in law school?
3.) What S.C. case had dicta which first served to protect minorities in later cases?
4.) When you go to court, what do you want to prevail?
Any 1L student can answer all of these questions, you only need 3. Use Google if you need it.
belercous
Member
O.K.; I see you've cut & pasted. 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. One of the first cases taught in law school. You ain't no lawyer, and you ain't bull'sh1tt1ng me. Answer my last post.
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. One of the first cases taught in law school. You ain't no lawyer, and you ain't bull'sh1tt1ng me. Answer my last post.
belercous
Member
Fiddletown; it makes me think as you've answered the original post quite well. We've just diverged after that.
I understand that most lawyers don't try cases, and even fewer deal with Const. law cases.
Just was sayin' that you are not in the mainstream thought of constitutional interpretation. Did not intend to disparage you so. Appologies to you. (Please still answer my 2nd to last post. Trust, but verify) Sorry I didn't trust at first, I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. But at least I caught myself. And admitted I could have been too hasty in my replies.
If need be, I'll put mustard on my foot, or on a fresh, lightly baked crow.
I understand that most lawyers don't try cases, and even fewer deal with Const. law cases.
Just was sayin' that you are not in the mainstream thought of constitutional interpretation. Did not intend to disparage you so. Appologies to you. (Please still answer my 2nd to last post. Trust, but verify) Sorry I didn't trust at first, I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. But at least I caught myself. And admitted I could have been too hasty in my replies.
If need be, I'll put mustard on my foot, or on a fresh, lightly baked crow.
[1] Rule 1 of both the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specify the scope to the Rules, so neither of those Rule 1s have anything to do with a continuance. The 9th Circuit (and North Carolina) has a Rule 1 setting out the procedures (notice requirements, documentation required, standards for review, etc.) for a motion for a continuance for good cause in a criminal matter. (Rule 2 in the 9th Circuit deals with continuances in a civil matter.)
[2] I have no idea what the first thing I was taught in law school was. That was over 30 years ago. My first year classes included Torts, Civil Procedure and Contracts. But the first thing covered the next year in Criminal Law was, "Always collect your criminal fees in advance."
[3] As far as the Supreme Court case, that's a vague and broad question. I'm sure a great many civil rights cases and cases dealing with other matters have included dicta which ultimately may have been helpful in other cases involving minorities.
[4] As far as what you want to prevail when you go to court, the politically correct answer is, no doubt, justice. But in real life you want your client to prevail (as long as you can achieve that result ethically and in accordance with the rules). We are, of course, required to vigorously and zealously represent the interests of our client, within the applicable rules, and must trust to the system.
[2] As far as why jurisdiction was proper, the Court determined that the decree of the District Court was a final judgment for the purposes of 15 USC 29. The Court found, inter alia, that the decree of the District Court fully disposed of the issues raised by the Government's complaint; the nature of the anti-trust issues and complexity of the remedy required that any issues of law be resolved promptly; and a finding that the District's Court's decree was not final would have been a departure from the Court's past practice.
[3] As far as the bases for personal jurisdiction over Brown Shoe, there is nothing in the Supreme Court decision to suggest that personal jurisdiction was ever challenged or in doubt. No doubt the original complaint included the usual allegations establishing a basis for personal jurisdiction that the defendant was a corporation organized under the laws of [State] and doing business in the United States and that the conduct at issue involves the defendant's business activities in the United States. And the Clayton Act provides for suits under it to be brought in federal district court.
So what is your background? Are you a lawyer? When did you go to law school? Are you practicing law?
And no apologies are necessary, but thank you.
[2] I have no idea what the first thing I was taught in law school was. That was over 30 years ago. My first year classes included Torts, Civil Procedure and Contracts. But the first thing covered the next year in Criminal Law was, "Always collect your criminal fees in advance."
[3] As far as the Supreme Court case, that's a vague and broad question. I'm sure a great many civil rights cases and cases dealing with other matters have included dicta which ultimately may have been helpful in other cases involving minorities.
[4] As far as what you want to prevail when you go to court, the politically correct answer is, no doubt, justice. But in real life you want your client to prevail (as long as you can achieve that result ethically and in accordance with the rules). We are, of course, required to vigorously and zealously represent the interests of our client, within the applicable rules, and must trust to the system.
[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:
[2] As far as why jurisdiction was proper, the Court determined that the decree of the District Court was a final judgment for the purposes of 15 USC 29. The Court found, inter alia, that the decree of the District Court fully disposed of the issues raised by the Government's complaint; the nature of the anti-trust issues and complexity of the remedy required that any issues of law be resolved promptly; and a finding that the District's Court's decree was not final would have been a departure from the Court's past practice.
[3] As far as the bases for personal jurisdiction over Brown Shoe, there is nothing in the Supreme Court decision to suggest that personal jurisdiction was ever challenged or in doubt. No doubt the original complaint included the usual allegations establishing a basis for personal jurisdiction that the defendant was a corporation organized under the laws of [State] and doing business in the United States and that the conduct at issue involves the defendant's business activities in the United States. And the Clayton Act provides for suits under it to be brought in federal district court.
So what is your background? Are you a lawyer? When did you go to law school? Are you practicing law?
And no apologies are necessary, but thank you.
gc70
Member
belercous said:
The following excerpt (PDF page 196) from the Congressional Research Service analysis specifically addresses "plenary" powers (emphasis added):
belercous
Member
gc70;
The first sentence of your quote proves my point. Art.III, Sec.2, Cl.2 "...with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." further proves my point. See McColluch v. Maryland (it dealt with a state taxing a federal bank) for the exact wording, but the gist of it goes something like this: The power to tax is the power to destroy. States cannot tax something created or chartered by the Federal Government as Congress has plenary power in this area (chartering federal banks) and if a state had the power to tax something created by the Federal Government, the state could destroy it. As Congress has plenary power (in this area), to allow a state to tax such creation would mean the power is not plenary, hence, a state cannot tax a creation of the Federal Government where Congress has plenary power. (otherwise Congress's power would not be plenary).
Your quote is correct that no SCOTUS decision holds that Congress can overturn its decisions, that would be SCOTUS overturning Marbury. Of course they wouldn't say that, it would diminish the Court's power. The point is, Congress can strip the Court of all but the jurisdiction granted it by the Const. But the Const. says nothing about SCOTUSW having the power to interpret the Const. That is something the Court said that it had in 1801, and no one has mounted a serious challenge to it because it would be a political non-starter. It only makes sense that the Court has this power, they are experts in the law.
My point is that, constitutionally, Congress could strip the Court of this power. In Great Britain Parliament can, and often does, override the courts on matters of constitutional understanding. We could too, we just don't think its a good idea. Take a class on American government at your local college, you will be surprised about some things, and it is interesting too.
Fiddletown;
Asking for a continuance under Rule 1 of the court ias a colloquialism; it means the client hasn't paid his fee yet.
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. It's the leading case in American jurisprudence on the subject. Any 1L knows that. You, a "lawyer," couldn't have boiled it down to a sentence?
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?
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.
Hey, you got one right! Good on you. You want to win (within the rules of course).
"Justice" is subjective. Let God deal with that.
I read a lot, big, non-fiction books with no pictures as I refuse to have a TV. I enjoy reading the U.S. Reports (S.C. decisions), but then again, I'm not normal.
I have an undergrad degree in political science & philosophy, with an emphasis on American government. My J.D. is from St. Louis University School of Law. Before this, I used to work on aircraft (FAA certified A&P mechanic)
As I prefer to hide my shame, I tell my parents I play piano in a whorehouse. If they thought I praticed law I'd be disowned if lucky, and shot if in range.
The first sentence of your quote proves my point. Art.III, Sec.2, Cl.2 "...with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." further proves my point. See McColluch v. Maryland (it dealt with a state taxing a federal bank) for the exact wording, but the gist of it goes something like this: The power to tax is the power to destroy. States cannot tax something created or chartered by the Federal Government as Congress has plenary power in this area (chartering federal banks) and if a state had the power to tax something created by the Federal Government, the state could destroy it. As Congress has plenary power (in this area), to allow a state to tax such creation would mean the power is not plenary, hence, a state cannot tax a creation of the Federal Government where Congress has plenary power. (otherwise Congress's power would not be plenary).
Your quote is correct that no SCOTUS decision holds that Congress can overturn its decisions, that would be SCOTUS overturning Marbury. Of course they wouldn't say that, it would diminish the Court's power. The point is, Congress can strip the Court of all but the jurisdiction granted it by the Const. But the Const. says nothing about SCOTUSW having the power to interpret the Const. That is something the Court said that it had in 1801, and no one has mounted a serious challenge to it because it would be a political non-starter. It only makes sense that the Court has this power, they are experts in the law.
My point is that, constitutionally, Congress could strip the Court of this power. In Great Britain Parliament can, and often does, override the courts on matters of constitutional understanding. We could too, we just don't think its a good idea. Take a class on American government at your local college, you will be surprised about some things, and it is interesting too.
Fiddletown;
Asking for a continuance under Rule 1 of the court ias a colloquialism; it means the client hasn't paid his fee yet.
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. It's the leading case in American jurisprudence on the subject. Any 1L knows that. You, a "lawyer," couldn't have boiled it down to a sentence?
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?
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.
Hey, you got one right! Good on you. You want to win (within the rules of course).
"Justice" is subjective. Let God deal with that.
I read a lot, big, non-fiction books with no pictures as I refuse to have a TV. I enjoy reading the U.S. Reports (S.C. decisions), but then again, I'm not normal.
I have an undergrad degree in political science & philosophy, with an emphasis on American government. My J.D. is from St. Louis University School of Law. Before this, I used to work on aircraft (FAA certified A&P mechanic)
As I prefer to hide my shame, I tell my parents I play piano in a whorehouse. If they thought I praticed law I'd be disowned if lucky, and shot if in range.
That's not the first the thing I was taught in law school. It seems a little odd to suggest that every law student in every law school in America is taught the exact same thing "first." My first class didn't even have anything to do with suing people so why would we have been taught that?
Maybe where you practice, but I've never heard that expression in my career.belercous said:
[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:
[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_case?case=9571017711360259745&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr.
[3] Indeed that jurisdictional issue before the Court in Brown Shoe was as I described: whether the judgment of the District Court was a final judgment for the purposes of giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
[4] And yes, I'm familiar with the concept of minimum contacts. But you have your shoes mixed up. The seminal case on personal jurisdiction and minimum contacts is International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945): http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=326&invol=310.
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:
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:
belercous
Member
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.
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?
BTW; my law school had on staff Vincent Immel. Google him. He was the guy who Proffessor Kingsfield in the Dustin Hoffman movie "Paper Chase" was modeled after. And Vince had no problem flunking people, the guy was a total prick. And he didn't quit SLU until the early 21st century. Yeah, he was still alive 40 years after the book & movie. And John Houseman looked like Immel.
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?
BTW; my law school had on staff Vincent Immel. Google him. He was the guy who Proffessor Kingsfield in the Dustin Hoffman movie "Paper Chase" was modeled after. And Vince had no problem flunking people, the guy was a total prick. And he didn't quit SLU until the early 21st century. Yeah, he was still alive 40 years after the book & movie. And John Houseman looked like Immel.
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. It is all about P JX and minimal contacts. I would suggest if one is going to call some one to task and demand their familiarity with a case that he or she at least cite the right case. I really do enjoy self ownage though.
Since we are being mean and acting better than people, I'll bite:
You went to
What is that school ranked?
And from top lawschools.com: "Although SLU is not an academic powerhouse . . . it does hold its own in certain regards.
Isn't it the school you go to if you cannot get into WashU?
Last edited:
belercous
Member
Fiddletown & Girodin:
Yes, I made a mistake, it was as you both said International Shoe. I live next door to St. Louis, and Brown Shoe was big there. I am sorry, I did screw up, I cited the wrong case.
I can't believe that any attorney has never heard of Rule 1 of the court, but as has been demonstrated, I'm not infallible. At least this saves me from being nailed to a cross.
I erred, sorry to send you looking up a case which had nothing to do with my point. I know how tedious researching something can be, especially when someone who is as cofident as I assures you it is there. Me did big boo-boo, bad me. I was just yammering off the top of my head, I don't research everything I say because I'm on dial-up with a diesel powered computer.
But my general point remains untouched, a court needs both in personam jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction in order to hear a case. And I believe this originally involved Congress's ability to limit SCOTUS's to hear cases. Any way, great to continue the great American tradition of dialectic conversation, but mom says it's time form bed now. Nighty-nite.
Yes, I made a mistake, it was as you both said International Shoe. I live next door to St. Louis, and Brown Shoe was big there. I am sorry, I did screw up, I cited the wrong case.
I can't believe that any attorney has never heard of Rule 1 of the court, but as has been demonstrated, I'm not infallible. At least this saves me from being nailed to a cross.
I erred, sorry to send you looking up a case which had nothing to do with my point. I know how tedious researching something can be, especially when someone who is as cofident as I assures you it is there. Me did big boo-boo, bad me. I was just yammering off the top of my head, I don't research everything I say because I'm on dial-up with a diesel powered computer.
But my general point remains untouched, a court needs both in personam jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction in order to hear a case. And I believe this originally involved Congress's ability to limit SCOTUS's to hear cases. Any way, great to continue the great American tradition of dialectic conversation, but mom says it's time form bed now. Nighty-nite.
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:
What are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything?belercous said:
There's no doubt in my mind that he's thinking of International Shoe.Girodin said:
gc70
Member
belercous said:
I may amuse myself by auditing some classes when I retire, but casual observation of students suggests current courses are less rigorous than those I took at the schools I attended. Nevertheless, your advice might better be shared with the staff of the Congressional Research Service, since it is their conclusions with which you disagree.
While I do not contest that the Constitution appears to give Congress plenary power over the jurisdiction of federal courts, Congress will never exercise that power on a broad scale - not for legal reasons, but for political reasons. For two centuries, the population has become accustomed to judicial review of legislation. Removing legislation from judicial review would very negatively change the public's perception of the government's system of checks and balances and Congress has no appetite to be the focus of such negative perception.
Consider the We the People Act introduced by Ron Paul in the last four sessions of Congress. That bill would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over cases involving establishment of religion, privacy (abortion, sexual practices, and sexual orientation) and homosexual marriage. Given the nature of the bill, one might expect a number of members of Congress would act as cosponsors simply to signal their devotion to issues dear to their constituents, but the bill has never had more than single-digit numbers of cosponsors.
Last edited:
bushmaster1313
Member
This does not make sense
The plaintiff could bring the case to the Supreme Court under the Constitution
The plaintiff could bring the case to the Supreme Court under the Constitution
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Well this has been ... unpleasant and off topic.
If we're all settled now on who's got the biggest briefs (a pun! Ha!) we'll go ahead and shut this down.
If we're all settled now on who's got the biggest briefs (a pun! Ha!) we'll go ahead and shut this down.
- Status
