Replies

Okay, dialing it back a little. There is triple set of prerogatives at work in this.

Yes, liberal States would be more inclined to appoint liberal judges, this would be the first prerogative, purely partisan. However, these judges would be appointed for their States prerogatives, different and possibly in conflict from a federal agenda of their party. And third, a judicial prerogative, that is, actually exercising their judgment.

Typically, like the federal District Courts, cases would be assigned to three judge panels *not* from the State of origin, to lessen conflicts of interest. The panel would examine the lower federal courts arguments about the constitutionality issues, but only to help them decide jurisdiction.

At this point, there are eight alternatives for the two parties involved in the case, only *one* of which wants the case *federally* appealed, and only *one* of which is “winning” the federal appeals:

1) Wants the federal appeal, winning the federal appeal, won the State case. This side is happy to end it all any time, and at any level.

2) Wants the federal appeal, winning the federal appeal, lost the State case. Wants to keep it federal, but doesn’t want to roll the dice again.

3) Wants the federal appeal, losing the federal appeal, won the State case. Wants jurisdiction returned to the State.

4) Wants the federal appeal, losing the federal appeal, lost the State case. Probably wants to go to SCOTUS.

5) Doesn’t want the federal appeal, winning the federal appeal, won the State case. Wants to end it as soon as possible at any level.

6) Doesn’t want the federal appeal, winning the federal appeal, lost the State case. Wants to end it in the federal courts.

7) Doesn’t want the federal appeal, losing the federal appeal, won the State case. Definitely wants jurisdiction back in the State.

8) Doesn’t want the federal appeal, losing the federal appeal, lost the State case. Has to go for SCOTUS.

As you can see, with these alternatives, it isn’t just simply that a liberal judge wants to forward liberal cases, but the parties to the cases also get a strong say in what they want to do.

So this seriously discriminates cases coming up from the District Courts. And once an appeal makes it past the three judge panel, all the State get their chance at it.

(I’d like to add, in context, that currently an amendment is being proposed in congress that would allow resolutions by 2/3rds of the States to overturn federal law. There are more holes in that idea than Swiss cheese.)