The U.S. Constitution, in Article III, Section 1, designates the Supreme Court as the highest court in the federal judiciary. It states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." This establishes the Supreme Court explicitly and grants Congress the authority to create lower federal courts, such as district courts and courts of appeals, but does not designate them by name in the Constitution itself.....bottom line is all lower courts were created by Congress. And they can be dismantled/de-funded by Congress........if they have the backbone.
And truthfully, the lower courts serve a purpose … just not the one that Jackson was advocating for. Her position that-without argument-birthright citizenship can’t be challenged even when framed as “an invading force” is facially comical. There are lots of ways to evolve the law, including what happened with the Chevron deference and Wade.
Thanks for clarifying that SC decision, David. I find it a bit alarming that these ideological district judges were allowed to play their little game for as long as they did. In an ideal world, those rogue judges would be removed from office for greatly overstepping their authority, but I assume that will never happen.
Unfortunately our judicial system has no checks and balances,ie, if you are a rogue judge then you should be terminated. The legal profession is the worst at kicking out and prosecuting rogue members. It’s a protected club that takes care of its own. David, hopefully you can help clean the swamp. Be an advocate for getting rid of bad attorneys and judges. And while I’m on my soapbox, we need to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits. Maybe we adopt the Canadian model where the plaintiff pays if they lose.
So lets take this Birth right citizenship question. Should it now be in every federal court to decide if locally how the 14th amendment should be interpreted?
So if the interpretation is now that both of your parents have to be US citizens for birth right citizenship to be considered, where does that leave every other instance? Do they no need to apply? Is it retroactive to the date of the new order?
Its obviously cleaner if SCOTUS either agrees or strikes down the EO for the entire country. But to now have every district court make its own interpretation gets messy really quick. That's the challenge of this.
And since its not a law but an executive order does the interpretation change at the next president? Can he/she basically throw out whatever this president decided to enact during his term? So you could have been legal last year, would now be illegal for the next 4 years, then a citizen again under the next administration? And if you don't like where it is where you currently live, I can just say move back to district where a judge interprets differently, more favorable to me?
And if some billionaire wishes to organize a campaign, he can find someone in every district and file a challenge? Then the AG will have to defend the order, perhaps challenging it up the line till enough cases get to SCOTUS for them to be forced to render first an emergency judgement for the entire country until it can be heard in front of the entire court months if not years later?
That’s not what the ruling says. It needs to go through the lower courts. On merits. Then get appealed. And appealed. And then SCOTUS weighs in. Like every law ever….
So presidential executive orders are considered the law of the land, as if they were passed by congress? Are there any limits to a president's power, outside of impeachment by congress?
The U.S. Constitution, in Article III, Section 1, designates the Supreme Court as the highest court in the federal judiciary. It states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." This establishes the Supreme Court explicitly and grants Congress the authority to create lower federal courts, such as district courts and courts of appeals, but does not designate them by name in the Constitution itself.....bottom line is all lower courts were created by Congress. And they can be dismantled/de-funded by Congress........if they have the backbone.
And truthfully, the lower courts serve a purpose … just not the one that Jackson was advocating for. Her position that-without argument-birthright citizenship can’t be challenged even when framed as “an invading force” is facially comical. There are lots of ways to evolve the law, including what happened with the Chevron deference and Wade.
Thanks for clarifying that SC decision, David. I find it a bit alarming that these ideological district judges were allowed to play their little game for as long as they did. In an ideal world, those rogue judges would be removed from office for greatly overstepping their authority, but I assume that will never happen.
Write a whole piece on the smack down of Jackson. I can not stop reading those 2.5 pages of ACB’s opinion. Inject it into my veins.
Ok! Tomorrow. It was pretty entertaining to read! I mean … you should use the clap emoji!
Full stop 👏🏻
Unfortunately our judicial system has no checks and balances,ie, if you are a rogue judge then you should be terminated. The legal profession is the worst at kicking out and prosecuting rogue members. It’s a protected club that takes care of its own. David, hopefully you can help clean the swamp. Be an advocate for getting rid of bad attorneys and judges. And while I’m on my soapbox, we need to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits. Maybe we adopt the Canadian model where the plaintiff pays if they lose.
So lets take this Birth right citizenship question. Should it now be in every federal court to decide if locally how the 14th amendment should be interpreted?
So if the interpretation is now that both of your parents have to be US citizens for birth right citizenship to be considered, where does that leave every other instance? Do they no need to apply? Is it retroactive to the date of the new order?
Its obviously cleaner if SCOTUS either agrees or strikes down the EO for the entire country. But to now have every district court make its own interpretation gets messy really quick. That's the challenge of this.
And since its not a law but an executive order does the interpretation change at the next president? Can he/she basically throw out whatever this president decided to enact during his term? So you could have been legal last year, would now be illegal for the next 4 years, then a citizen again under the next administration? And if you don't like where it is where you currently live, I can just say move back to district where a judge interprets differently, more favorable to me?
And if some billionaire wishes to organize a campaign, he can find someone in every district and file a challenge? Then the AG will have to defend the order, perhaps challenging it up the line till enough cases get to SCOTUS for them to be forced to render first an emergency judgement for the entire country until it can be heard in front of the entire court months if not years later?
That’s not what the ruling says. It needs to go through the lower courts. On merits. Then get appealed. And appealed. And then SCOTUS weighs in. Like every law ever….
So presidential executive orders are considered the law of the land, as if they were passed by congress? Are there any limits to a president's power, outside of impeachment by congress?