Search results

Then by that yardstick Roe should have been upheld in Dobbs, should it not? After all, there waa no higher court available to review its existence. First of all, are you by any chance suggesting that had Dred Scott survived to 1868 that the US Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford...

Now you are splitting hairs. Dobbs was about abortion. In order to render a decision in Dobbs it first had to "review"what the prevailing law was about abortion, including the legal precedents governing that issue. What word other than "review" would you use for such a process? First of all...

Then could you pleae point me to a case or two where the US Supreme Court does NOT use the word "jurisdiction", let alone declare a want of jurisdiction, yet where "the case decision...clearly reflect" that want of jurisdiction aspect.

By that yardstick, Dred Scot & Roe v. Wade would both STILL be the law of the land inside the United States. Are they? BTW, the "final arbiter" is NOT the Supreme Court but the ad hoc legislature set up under article 5 to amend the US Constitution. It has the power to overule tthe Supreme...

Thanks for the info, but that was not really what I was asking about in my original post Thanks very much for the links. You REALLY want to know? OK, but it will require an EXTENDED answer; I am trying to figure out the details of what the US Supreme Court did in Trump v. Anderson when it...

Point taken. That said, I think your interpretation is mistaken, if only because of the argument the Supreme Court appears to be pursuing in that case (although I will grant you that you proposal would NOT be impossible. Merely unlikely since it would appear (just MHO) to breach the separation...

Thanks very much for the link, but it still does not seem to deal with the specific situations I described in my original post. My purpose in posing those was to attempt to ascertain what legal rules & precedents applied (or might apply) to those situations, but so far I am not having much luck...

Your claim that the US Supreme Court "analyz[ed] the jurisdiction of the state court" is debatable, if only because: 1) The word "jurisdiction" is nowhere used in Trump v. Anderson; and 2) Nowhere did the Supreme Court state that the Anderson v. Griswold case in the Colorado Supreme Court was...

Yes it did. It even gets a mention in the Colorado Supreme Court decision (p7 of tjhat decision): "After permitting President Trump and the Colorado Republican StateCentral Committee ('CRSCC'; collectively, ;Intervenors') to intervene in theaction below, the district court conducted a five-day...

Yes it did. It even gets a mention in the Colorado Supreme Court decision (p7 of tjhat decision): "After permitting President Trump and the Colorado Republican StateCentral Committee ('CRSCC'; collectively, ;Intervenors') to intervene in theaction below, the district court conducted a five-day...

Not quite. I was looking to find out what legal RULES and PRECEDENTS would govern such situations (& thus the fate of the Denver district court's decision) IN THE ABSENCE of explicit Supreme Court directions. Based on the answers thus far the impression I am getting is that there would appear...

What about Colorado? The case I had in mind went from the state's district court in Denver directly to the state's Supreme Court. Even in cases where the Supreme Court itself in effect rules that the trials court should never have reached a decision at all? Given the case I have in mind and...

> I, and probably others, eschew hypotheticals. My purpose was to find out what the legal rules the Supreme Court would apply to cover the situations I described, multiple searches of the Net (& pawing through assorted cases) having drawn a blank. > Name the case. Trump v. Anderson (2024)

Not quite sure which forum to ask this decision in so I will try here first (if it is the wrong forum please let me know). What happens to the decision of a trials court when an appeal of that decision is reversed by the US Supreme Court? Note that I am asking: 1) about CIVIL case decisions...

That may well be so, but it is not at all clear that the Supreme Court itself understands the distinction. I say that because of a recent decision by that Court. That decision was Trump v. Anderson (2024) which dealt with disqualification under section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In that decision...

I have read that US law (much like, reportedly, British law before it) makes a distinction between a federal office such as the presidency and a legislative seat such as ones in Congress. That is to say, legislative seats are NOT regarded as offices. For example, that distinction can be seen in...