Can they do that? This judgment is in NY state, and it’s a civil case. Does the SC have any jurisdiction here? (I really have no idea, I’m just asking questions).
Can they do that? This judgment is in NY state, and it’s a civil case. Does the SC have any jurisdiction here? (I really have no idea, I’m just asking questions).
Article VI of the Constitution, 2nd paragraph: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The word “notwithstanding” is easier understood when it is separate into its three parts: not with standing; or in other words any state constitution, law, regulation or judicial ruling not in pursuance of the Constitution is illegal and must be struck down, not allowed to stand.
You are correct. The SC cannot “interceded”. There’s process for getting to the SC through a series of lower court decisions and appeals. It takes years.
The system is flawed. The administration of justice should always be speedy. Even more so as we witness unprecedented events of permanent consequence injurious to our Republic and the rule of law. Hypothetically, when a sitting President conspires with politically aligned state officials to take unjust actions to bankrupt and jail his political opponent, is it right to patiently wait as it slowly makes it way through the state courts, the federal appeal courts and then hope the case eventually make it to the Supreme Court while the entire system of government gets destroyed?
Can they do that? This judgment is in NY state, and it’s a civil case. Does the SC have any jurisdiction here? (I really have no idea, I’m just asking questions).
Article VI of the Constitution, 2nd paragraph: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The word “notwithstanding” is easier understood when it is separate into its three parts: not with standing; or in other words any state constitution, law, regulation or judicial ruling not in pursuance of the Constitution is illegal and must be struck down, not allowed to stand.
You are correct. The SC cannot “interceded”. There’s process for getting to the SC through a series of lower court decisions and appeals. It takes years.
The system is flawed. The administration of justice should always be speedy. Even more so as we witness unprecedented events of permanent consequence injurious to our Republic and the rule of law. Hypothetically, when a sitting President conspires with politically aligned state officials to take unjust actions to bankrupt and jail his political opponent, is it right to patiently wait as it slowly makes it way through the state courts, the federal appeal courts and then hope the case eventually make it to the Supreme Court while the entire system of government gets destroyed?