Did Obama /Holder file in the wrong court?

Discussion in 'Immigration/Illegal Immigration' started by ConHog, Aug 4, 2010.

  1. ConHog
    Offline

    ConHog BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Thanks Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +897
    It appears that they did. I was looking something else up this morning and came across this, which I'm sure I've read before but didn't realize.

    Article 3 Section 2 of the COTUS

    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.



    So, it would appear that the lower courts have no jurisdiction here and the case should have went immediately to the SCOTUS.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. ConHog
    Offline

    ConHog BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Thanks Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +897
  3. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    you can't look at that clause without looking at THIS one:

    In this particular case, jurisdiction lies with the federal district court established pursuant to that enabling section. For example:

    Understanding the Federal Courts

    State & Federal Courts

    the district courts are the trial level courts to which the task of hearing most federal cases has been assigned pursuant to Article 3, Section 1.

    and even if the supreme court has original jurisdiction, it does not have EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction, but instead has concurrent jurisdiction in these areas.

    And while I appreciate your question, it is infuriating that hacks at blogs like worldnetdaily profess to set forth constitutional pronouncements that are wholly totally and incredibly misleading... which is why i can't stand the pretend constitutionalists. they pervert the law and people's view of it.
     
  4. ConHog
    Offline

    ConHog BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Thanks Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +897
    Respectfully, I disagree.

    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.

    I realize it is not the best source in the world, but in this case I liked the easy to read definitions, and so I will use it.

    The original jurisdiction of a court is the right to hear a case for the first time as opposed to appellate jurisdiction when a court has the right to review a lower court's decision. In the United States these courts are also referred to as trial courts.

    Original jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Now obviously there is noway a case can be heard by a lower court and then for the SCOTUS to have original jurisdiction.

    Now, does this matter? In the grand scheme , probably not, but it seems clear that several parties on both sides, including the lower courts simply don't understand the COTUS. It is CLEAR this case should have went straight to the SCOTUS
     
  5. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    It just states they have the right to hear the case for the first time, not that it must be heard by them.
     
  6. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    if you were correct, it would have been raised below. there's a reason it wasn't raised.

    you can't simply look at the constitution without looking at the laws and caselaw and rules promulgated under it.
     
  7. ConHog
    Offline

    ConHog BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Thanks Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +897
    And the SCOTUS declined to hear this case when exactly? Oh they didn't which means the case was filed in the wrong court as claimed in my OP.
     
  8. ConHog
    Offline

    ConHog BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Thanks Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +897
    You and I both know that procedural errors have been missed all the way to the SCOTUS before Jillian. It happens.

    And I don't doubt for one second that there is a possibility that Holder knowingly filed in the wrong court.
     
  9. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    They do not have to decline to see it, for it to be heard in another court. Did you not notice the part where they mentioned they had appellate jurisdiction in all other cases?
    It is pretty clear it states that they can bring a case directly to the Supreme Court in certain matters, but do not have to.

    The original jurisdiction of a court is the right to hear a case for the first time as opposed to appellate jurisdiction when a court has the right to review a lower court's decision. In the United States these courts are also referred to as trial courts. Original jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    No where does it say they must!
     
  10. ConHog
    Offline

    ConHog BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Thanks Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +897
    You need to learn to read, or better yet you need to learn not to post in threads in which you don't have a clue.
     

Share This Page