![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Stowaway
Posts: n/a
Downloads:
Uploads:
|
![]()
Section 2.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Stowaway
Posts: n/a
Downloads:
Uploads:
|
![]()
Perhaps something happened, but the judge of record has no jurisdiction here. Only the SCOTUS is the court of record. when it comes to states being part of the proceedings. We saw this when GWB stole the election from Al Gore.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Wayfaring Stranger
|
![]()
__________________
![]() Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Eternal Patrol
![]() |
![]()
'S okay. Some people see only the "facts" they want to see, and nothing else counts.
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Wayfaring Stranger
|
![]()
Yeah and it's off topic anyways.
__________________
![]() Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Stowaway
Posts: n/a
Downloads:
Uploads:
|
![]()
Did not SCOTUS step in when the state was accused of a misdeed during the 2000 campaign? Same as AZ, accused for a missdeed. The lower courts have no jurisdiction here, if you believe in the constitution.
Section 2. Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Silent Hunter
![]() Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,404
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
The Third Man - while constitutionally you are correct, since 1978 this matter has been specifically changed through an initial Congressional action and tacit approval of the Court itself.
While its in the last bit of the page - you may find this enlightening on the matter: http://supreme.justia.com/constituti...bassadors.html
__________________
Good Hunting! Captain Haplo ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Eternal Patrol
![]() |
![]() Quote:
2. Finally, Florida's Attorney General said enough was enough. Whether you think that was right; whether you think it was politically motivated; that was part of her job and her prerogative. 3. The Gore camp went to the Florida State Supreme Court and they overturned her decision. 4. The Bush Camp then went to the US Supreme Court and they in turn overturned the Florida Court's ruling. The point is that you can argue that any of those decisions was political or legitimate. What is downright silly is claiming that Bush "stole" the election. It is just as valid to argue that Bush was ahead, the Attorney General was correct in her action, and that Gore attempted to use the State Court to steal the election. Unless you can actually show impropriety on the part of the Supreme Court, claiming "theft" shows a lack of understanding of how the system works.
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Wayfaring Stranger
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
![]() Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|