Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The difference is that my case -- and Schiavo's -- doesn't involve only abstract principles of law -- e.g., all gay marriages in Massachusetts -- but rather the application of law to one particular set of facts. And it's not like a Congressional determination to pre-empt state law before there's an adjudication -- it's an after-the-fact response to a judicial decision that one doesn't like. Boxer wouldn't do the same thing for club, after all.
|
This is sounding like a Fed. Courts hypo (boy, the profs. just had an exam handed to them, no?)
Calder v. Bull? Ex post facto doesn't apply to civil cases/private rights--that's one of the problems, since Congress is trying to change the result after it's happened.
Ex parte McCardle? In reverse, since they're granting jurisdiction to change a result, rather than withdrawing it to prevent a result. but the can do that.
It seems to run against a number of principles, but not directly.
What if you thought the state courts had gotten the case wrong in the first place? Would your views be different?
Threaded Mode