| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| Any lawyers care to comment on this claim that Judge Bolton can't legally do what she did? |
| 2010-07-30 |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #5 TW wins the "Moderator Snark of the Day" award! |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-07-30 16:56 |
| #4 And we have to read a Canadian site to get this info___why? Rantburg collects articles from all over the world, Thruper Darling of the French2824, not all of them in English. Fortunately, Canadian is easy to translate. /so much easier than from Austrian into German, for instance. Poor President Obama! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-07-30 16:41 |
| #3 And we have to read a Canadian site to get this info___why? |
| Posted by: Thruper Darling of the French2824 2010-07-30 15:08 |
| #2 Congress may grant concurrent jurisdiction to lower federal courts. That is, Congress may give the lower federal courts the right to hear the same kind of cases (e.g., cases in which a state is a party) as fall within the Supreme CourtÂ’s original jurisdiction. |
| Posted by: Jeting Platypus3329 2010-07-30 12:21 |
| #1 The bottom line is that she knew it was bigger than her court, and no matter what she decided, it will be appealed up to the Supreme Court. So instead of deciding anything, she just identified the four issues that were contentious, so just they would be sent up the chain. The only action she did that was averse was to put an injunction on the enforcement of these four. This was done to take it out of the public forum of protest vs. protest. Also pretty standard practice with contentious issues. Had she not done so, and the law enforced, it could have resulted in a lot of future litigation. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-07-30 11:09 |