Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is that entirely right? For example, diversity jurisdiction. The constitution puts no limits on it: "to controversies . . . between citizens of different states" yet no court has jurisdiction absent a claim above the jurisdictional threshold. Under your question as posited, wouldn't Congress's removal of the lower court's power place all such questions in the Court's original jurisdiction?
|
Yes, but diversity jurisdiction was a statutory grant of J from Congress; federal question jurisdiction (which DeLay is stripping here) isn't. I don't know that I can reconcile why diversity J is a statutory grant with the "citizens of diferrent states" language in the Constitution, but diversity J has always been a situation where Congress giveth and Congress taketh away (even from the Supreme Court), and federal question hasn't. There must be a case on that. Not Me?
Quote:
|
Fed. Jur. was an awfully long time ago, and its usefulness was limited to one year long ago, but the constitution places certain types of cases in the Court's original jurisdiction. Other types in its appelate jurisdiction (unless Congress decides otherwise) and allows, but does not require, the federal judicial power to "extend to" a host of enumerated types of cases.
|
As to federal question cases, even the Supreme Court might not have original J --- that's conferred by the Constitution by express grants, I agree. I guess DeLay is saying you can file your cases in state courts asserting federal law as the supreme law of the land, and then the Supreme Court will have to reinstate appellate jurisdiction (which it presently doesn't have; just certorari) and take a hell of a lot more cases on appeal from state supreme courts and courts of appeal. Whatever statute eliminated appellate review of state courts and made Supreme Court review entirely discretionary might wind up being unconstitutional, as applied, in DeLay world. Just surmising here.
