Posted on 06/03/2017 11:16:18 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
Yes and no. The constitution gives original jurisdiction on some issues to the Supreme Court and on any other legal matters the scope of the court’s jurisdiction is up to Congress (with the President signing on). Congress can create inferior courts to help out, and define their jurisdiction. That is what it did. It now needs to take away jurisdiction of some matters, and expand the appellate courts with dozens of new judges (split the 9th, for starters).
Subject to the jurisdictional descriptions in Article III and the 11th amendment, sure.
And a Congressional grant or congressional restriction is itself reviewable.
By then their might be another new SP justice or 2.
Ginsberg should recuse herself anyway for her election comments. She can’t be fair in any case regarding President Trump.
What aspect was that? Religious freedom applies to everyone in the US, not just to citizens. I agree the religious freedom argument is unjustified in this case, but not because the case is about foreigners.
You can always pose what ifs where courts disregard the law even more than they already do. What if a judge is impeached and refuses to leave the bench, and is assigned cases by the head judge of his district? What if Congress splits the 9th circuit and the 9th continues to hear cases from the new circuit? The possibilities are endless in a lawless society, but that doesn't change what the law says.
There are not constitutional rights implicated by the executive order. If he tried to exclude a US citizen, it would be different.
Case law. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld being one example.
-- In, say, removing jurisdiction from the 9th circuit to hear cases involving immigration, for example, if they tried to hear them anyway, they should be denied all funds for such endeavors and impeached. --
Congress has succesfully assigned subjet matter jurisdiction to specialty courts, no sweat on that.
I was making a leap that what was being suggested was that -NO- court could have jurisdiction over certain subject matter.
I don't foresee Congress ever doing the right thing on its own. It allowed GWB to create a court, usurp a Congressional power, up to the point that SCOTUS mentioned the GWB had no power to create a court. I think the interval was on the order of four years.
The Government's motion to dismiss, based on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), is denied. DTA S:1005(e)(1) provides that "no court ... shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider ... an application for ... habeas corpus filed by ... an alien detained ... at Guantanamo Bay."
-- The possibilities are endless in a lawless society, but that doesn't change what the law says. --
In our society, SCOTUS hallucinates rights to abortion and homosexual marriage, forces people to violate common religious beliefs, facilitates expansion of FedGov well outside constitutional boundaries, allowed (for decades) states to disarm free people, and I'm just getting started. Whatever the law says is just so much hot air.
In point of fact they do, from the moment they first interact with the US government. The President can not exclude them from immigration opportunities that are available to others solely on the basis of their religion. Again, that isn't what Trump is trying to do. The plaintiffs are alleging this because, were it true, it would be a violation of their rights.
we would be better off treating gmint positions like jury selection
Ditto that. Ruthie should recuse if the same standards applied to the left, but sadly they don’t.
What the heck...the black-robe fascists have zero authority to question the lawful executive orders of a president.
Trump should order the arrest of the 4th and 9th circuit judges for treason. Hang half of them, and sentence the other half to life in prison.
Trump needs to to get a handle on this treason before the unorganized militia decides to get organized and take care of these black-robe fascist traitors.
Gorsuck is a flaming authoritarian.
Knew prior to his selection.
That is not true. People who have no idea what they are talking about are why I have to remind myself not to engage on threads involving legal issues. If you have a case cite of a Supreme Court decision that gives the 7 billion people of the world US Constitutional rights, I would be happy to review it and see if it says what you claim it says.
I was making a leap that what was being suggested was that -NO- court could have jurisdiction over certain subject matter.
Congress can do that, too, if it wants. The courts don't have a Constitutional right to hear any and all cases that they think they should. They only have the legal right to hear what Congress wants them to hear, except as to the Supreme Court, and then only as to what Congress assigns it, with the exception of matters that are mentioned in the Constitution. The courts were designed to be tools to assist Congress in the adjucation of legal matters that Congress assigned them. They have become a super legislature, but they were not supposed to be. Read your federalist papers and the Constitution.
In our society, SCOTUS hallucinates rights to abortion and homosexual marriage, forces people to violate common religious beliefs, facilitates expansion of FedGov well outside constitutional boundaries, allowed (for decades) states to disarm free people, and I'm just getting started. Whatever the law says is just so much hot air.
On that, you and I agree. Congress has a remedy for that, which is what I am suggesting. The public and a lot of lawyers don't understand the powers that Congress has. Not that you are a lawyer, I would bet a lot of money you are not.
Their first interaction could be on the battlefield.
What a ludicrous position to take.
JD with honors, late 1990's, never took the bar, other than USPTO bar.
Just to refresh the topic, here is what sparked me to reply to you.
-- Congress can create inferior courts to help out, and define their jurisdiction. --To that, you said "Don't know where you get your information."Subject to the jurisdictional descriptions in Article III and the 11th amendment, sure. And a Congressional grant or congressional restriction is itself reviewable.
I replied "case law" and cited Hamdan, Marbury having been previously mentioned. Both of those cases involved a court reviewing a Congressional definition of jurisdiction, and in Hamdan, the court reviewed a congressional restriction on jurisdiction.
What is ludicrous is that you would jump from a discussion about immigration and constitutional rights to rules of combat in order to distract from the fact that you made a flawed argument.
Well... people who result to ad hominems when they run out of arguments probably shouldn't engage in threads, legal or otherwise.
It couldn't possibly be simpler. The Constitution limits the President's powers. Immigrants have the right to petition the US courts when they have a dispute with the US government. One of the arguments they can make is that the President has exceeded his authority.
You did have a cite, but it did not support your proposition.
A court can’t have jurisdiction taken away by law and decide it still has it any more than Congress can take away original jurisdiction and expect courts to accept that. Our system requires that when something is black and white, people accept it, even if they disagree. Courts play around in gray areas where they think they can get away with interpretation. The problem is, we have courts these days saying black is white. They need to be brought in line with their proper role. One way to do that is limit what they can have before them. If courts go completely rogue, the only option left is for other equal branches to ignore them, defund them, impeach them or arrest them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.