The power of the Supreme Court in the states

[rupol2000]

This is incorrect but not surprising that you'd believe it. The Left is getting comfortable with ignoring our Constitution unless it supports their plans. What they don't account for is the lawlessness being used by their political foes, as well. This double standard is going to blow up in their faces soon.

Where in the constitution is it written that the state courts are subordinate to the feds (except federal courts)?

 

[rupol2000]

The only exception in the states is Louisiana which is based on the Napoleonic tradition.

There are no foundations of the Napoleonic tradition, there is case law.

 

[rupol2000]

U.S. jurisprudence springs from English Common Law

It doesn't matter, the English system is also not Romano-Germanic

 

[WinterBorn]

courts must look to precedent and law, but their decisions are not challenged by the High Court. They are their own superior authority and there is no one higher than them.

Once again you show your ignorance where the US is concerned.

Yes, the US Supreme Court can challenge, and overrule, lower courts.

 

[WinterBorn]

According to my information, state courts are independent of the federal court. I read it in the legal literature.

My understanding is that the Supreme Court can only challenge federal law.

Then your information is wrong. Read what PoliticalChic has written. She is absolutely correct.

Rather than argue what you think you know, try listening to people who do know. PoliticalChic is one of those who knows.

 

[SavannahMann]

Ideally, only the constitution

Ok. Great. We are getting somewhere.

So the Gay couple who got married in Vegas return home to Texas. Once in Texas they decide to Divorce. Texas says they can’t get divorced because they aren’t Married under Texas Law.

The Gay Couple sues in Federal Court arguing they are deprived of their Equal Rights under the Constitution.

Gays become a Constitutional and thus Federal Issue.

If Texas won’t treat all people equally. Then the Federal Courts absolutely have Jurisdiction.

 

[SavannahMann]

Then your information is wrong. Read what PoliticalChic has written. She is absolutely correct.

Rather than argue what you think you know, try listening to people who do know. PoliticalChic is one of those who knows.

Yeah. I quit reading after she said Democrats lie. I said that for about three decades. I said it after the 1980’s when we were warned that Republicans would see Roe overturned. I said it after the 1990’s, the 2000’s.

It turns out. I was wrong. I figured it was established precedent. Every single Supreme Court Nominee agreed.

Ten years ago. I mocked the Liberals for trying to scare people with the claim that Roe would be overturned. I mocked them. I told them that my first election where I could vote in 1986 that was what we were told.

But it turns out. They were right all along.

So when Democrats say that that Republicans are trying to overturn Gay Marriage. I’m going to listen and consider. Because I’ve seen something the Republicans swear would never happen, happen. I read where Justice Thomas said we should revisit all the decisions.

So I’m not impressed when someone swears that it isn’t going to happen if they are in charge. Especially when they are salivating already.

 

[WinterBorn]

rupol, you are obsessed with homosexuals. I wonder why?

Also, why do you care whether gays can marry? It does not create more gays. It simply affords them the same benefits that straights enjoy.

Same sex marriage does not affect you at all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Quite true, which makes the actions of SCOTUS in 2020 that much more reprehensible.

They may be trying to redeem themselves.

In an embarrassing dereliction of duty, the Supreme Court refused to hear Trump’s case after the election. No court heard the evidence, hiding behind ‘no standing to bring the case.’ Bogus at best, cowardly probably. No doubt the Democrat incitement of over 12 thousand riots and assaults had a lot to do with the courts fear. The Democrats had handled it like any good Fascist would.

Subsequently, the Court granted certiorari, a hearing that they refused Trump, to Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives Timothy K. Moore (R), on the question of exactly who is empowered to set up the districting map for the election of federal offices, Senators and Representatives.

Guess which other federal office falls under that rubric. That's right.....the presidency.



Leftists are about to see what Trump did for this nation in picking Originalists, who value the specific language of the US Constitution over the Wehrmacht.....er, Democrats, who claim they can alter it from any court.

Questions presented:

“

Whether a State's judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives . . . prescribed . . . by the Legislature thereof," U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4, cl. 1, and replace them with regulations of the state courts' own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a "fair" or "free" election.

This will decide who makes up the voting map for North Carolina.

BUT…..it will also focus attention on the states where governors,
election officials,
attorneys general,
state courts,
state constitutions,
sec’ys of state, etc.

.....decided the “time, place, and manner” of elections.





The case, Moore v Harper, is on the docket for October.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where in the constitution is it written that the state courts are subordinate to the feds (except federal courts)?

Answered twice already, you moron.



The Constitution is known as ‘the law of the land.’

The U.S. Constitution calls itself the "supreme law of the land." This clause is taken to mean that when state constitutions or laws passed by state legislatures or the national Congress are found to conflict with the federal Constitution, they have no force.

The Constitution as Supreme Law

http://www.let.rug.nl › usa › outlines › government-1991




The fact is that the only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution. It is written in English….no ‘interpretation’ is required.



Wherein we find this:
Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.
Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”

​

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)

supreme.justia.com



But....this occurred: courts altered voting rules.
“In Pennsylvania, the question was whether the state’s Supreme Court could override voting rules set by the state legislature. In North Carolina, the question was whether state election officials had the power to alter such voting rules.”
NYTimes

Sooo.....no, the election was not correctly decided, and we don't actually know who won the election.





Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

Supremacy Clause | Wex | US Law

 

[Devils_Advocate]

courts must look to precedent and law, but their decisions are not challenged by the High Court. They are their own superior authority and there is no one higher than them.

Incorrect!