Search results

Thank you so much. This is a very important observation that you make, so I thank you very much indeed. It is such a pleasure to have knowledgeable correspondents who have their brains in some gear other than neutral. Ocho and I have had a good discussion of this obscure clause on exceptions...

You shouldn't lie or misrepresent. But I suppose in your case it doesn't matter.

I think you have nicely summarized the issue. And that was a really nice summary of the Reconstruction case where the clause was invoked by Congress. However I don't think I'd agree that the power of Congress to make exceptions to the Courts Appellate Jurisdiction is in anyway limited to...

The lower court is not needed. What bears on the Supreme Court does so on the lower federal courts as well. Congress has the power to make exceptions to the Supreme Courts Appellate Jurisdiction. There has been, it turns out, one test of this power, as given by the Constitution in direct and...

That's right, and this, of course, has no relevance to the discussion of Congress' power to make exceptions in the Courts appellate jurisdiction, which is specifically taken up elsewhere in the excellent general discussion of the Court under Article III, which you found on the Cornell site. I...

Has anyone but me noticed this statement in bold below, incorporated into Chief Justice Chase's remarks and included in my quote above of his remarks attending McCardle: ...and the power [of Congress] to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this [Supreme] court is given by express...

I am so jealous! Next time take me with you please.

I admit I was surprised to find that the clause means very much precisely what I thought it means. At least in the case of this one precedent you turned up. Thank you. I had no idea the Constitutional clause had been tested. Certainly the Clause it self under Article III could not be more clear...

We all believe we know what the Constitution stands for; we are somewhat less certain about what's written in it. And we might be shocked if we actually read it.

Is that how you read this?: The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction... with such exceptions and regulations as the Congress shall make. The Court here is the Supreme Court of the United States. Not some other court. And the only appellate jurisdiction mentioned is that of the...

You are stunningly naive and hopelessly misinformed...

It is not "people" here that are reading that Congress can pass a law that is not reviewable by the Court. It is one person, me. And I am reading in our Constitution under Article III: The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction... with such exceptions and regulations as the Congress...

Of course. However issuing a stay on it's implementation until it could have been properly heard was what should have been done, considering the great harm that will come in the meantime from such a nutty law.

Jem, have you not been paying attention. This is exactly what everyone wants. Including presumably the Supreme Court. But way didn't they stay the Tx law until it can be heard? That screwball TX law is not only prima facie unconstitutional, but it goes all the way to prima facie nuts. Why...

exactly. That's why it,so far as I know, has never been used. This might however be the the occasion when it is needed to save the Republic, if in fact the Court has been so corrupted as to threaten the existence of the democratic Republic. Congress could be very specific in passing a law...

Perhaps some of them did not read the law themselves or were inadequately briefed by their clerks. The law as written seems prima facie unconstitutional. It seems a violation of the equal protection clause, among other violations, and it breaks with 200+ years of legal precedent in that it...

see my post #122 above. This will clarify.

At the very least, from trying to appeal through the Courts. What I have been referring to, something jem knows nothing about -- he reads, but such words as he wants to read-- is found under Article III. to wit: The Supreme Court shall have appellate jusisdiction, both as to law and fact...

Good questions. in the latter case it surely produce a constitutional crisis. In the first instance you mention the only recourse would be to Congress itself, and not through the courts. We should recall that nothing in the constitution specifically gives the court the power of review.. It is...

Again. The have the constitutional authority to make such a statute nonreviewable by the court. That's what i doubt they will do. They should!