I understand.
I addressed the material. You can’t address it yourself.
Point for me.
Yes I did. Not a good read in my opinion.
Ok, see you later.
Good, now we can discuss the article. Or as I call it: Truth.
Okay.
Then how do you feel about the claim that the cases before the Supreme Court are only binding to the parties in front of it?
Does everyone in D.C. have to go to the Supreme Court if they want to excersize their rights under Heller?
I feel great about it.
Yes.
How do you feel about they are not the final arbiters?
They aren’t the final arbiters.
They never were.
But really.
Every single person who wants a gun in DC would have to go to the Supreme Court?
That seems rather strange
Oh that’s not what I was told.
I’m having a hard time figuring out what the author’s point is.
He apparently discounts the common law as a source of law for this country, but then accurately describing how our common law system works. Nothing he said was wrong, but it appears to be just an argument about semantics.
1 Like
I was hoping you’d stop by. Maybe @Safiel will as well.
I’m tired, lot of excitement today. I’ll be back tomorrow.
Good night.
That is what seems to what is being argued in that link.
While the court is known for deciding the constitutionality of laws, its decisions are not themselves laws. In the strictest sense, the opinions rendered by the Supreme Court are binding only on the parties before it.
The Supreme Court is just that, a court . It was established to adjudicate cases and controversies before it. Courts cannot make general pronouncements of law; they exist to settle disputes.
In fact, the Supreme Court is prohibited from issuing advisory opinions or ruling on laws that do not arise through litigation. Justices are not consultant scholars but arbiters in the limited setting of a legal case, not general legal or public policy matters. Courts issue their rulings in the form of judicial opinions, laying out the holding and the rationale.
Honestly… this opinion article seems antithetical to the political strategy of the right over the past few decades.
Maybe it is the groundwork being laid to diminish the power of the courts in the coming decades when the political power shifts the other way.
Don’t really know.
They do it all the time.
The constitution gives congress the power to control the jurisdiction of federal courts- including the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Congress can add to any law it passes “not subject to judicial review”. It’s called Jurisdiction Stripping
1 Like
I wouldnt say “all the time”.
Have not read the OP article yet, although I will try to take a peek tomorrow (actually later today). 
Just came back from Washington, D.C. Getting ready to start construction next month in North Carolina, so I won’t be around all that much here, I will peek in, but probably will post very little.
This doesn’t always work, sometimes, but not always. Congress tried to limit habeas access to inmates at Guantanamo Bay, but the Supreme Court blew them off. If the courts feel a fundamental right is at stake, they will simply ignore an attempt at jurisdiction stripping.
2 Likes
There is a catch-22 there.
In a sense, in order for Congress to strip jurisdiction from the Court, the Court has to agree to it.
It shouldn’t.
Article II Section 2 says The Court’s appellate jurisdiction is given “with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
It does not say ‘only if the Court agrees’
The remedy is impeachment. Any justice who denies congress’ power to determine jurisdiction could be impeached.
Doesn’t sound very co-equal or founder-ish.
Well, that’ll never happen.
There are a lot of theories regarding jurisdiction and the Constitution, with even those on the same political side disagreeing as to what is permissible and not permissible.
You could theoretically strip the federal courts of federal question jurisdiction, strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over appeals from State Supreme Courts and let the state courts be the final arbiters of federal questions within their states, which would make life very interesting. New York courts might allow abortion on demand and permit 100% gun confiscation, while Texas courts might do 100% opposite.
Which is why Congress has never remotely considered the option of major jurisdiction stripping. They have done it in narrow situations, but never broadly.
