I'm still not sure what Mark means here by positing that a situation in
which a lower federal court reverses a state court decision.
Under the statutes that have been in effect from the Judiciary Act of 1789
forward, the inferior federal courts have lacked appellate jurisdiction
over state court
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Cooper Redux?
(Re: Marshall Upholding Federal Statutes)
With all of this
discussion of the difference between nullifying a statute and refusing to give
effect to it, I wonder how list members analyze Alabama Chief Justice Moore's
announcement that he
Upholding Federal Statutes)
With all of this discussion of the difference between nullifying a
statute and refusing to give effect to it, I wonder how list members
analyze Alabama Chief Justice Moore's announcement that he will not obey
a federal court order requiring removal of a ten
: Saturday, August 16, 2003 6:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Cooper Redux? (Re: Marshall Upholding Federal Statutes)
This would seem to be an easy one for textualists (particularly those
who would be inclined to be sympathetic to congressional efforts to
strip the federal courts
I'm not sure I understand this. Lower federal courts can't literally
reverse state court rulings; that's the point of Rooker-Feldman. And
in practice I know that at least some state supreme courts do not
consider themselves bound by the rulings of their federal circuit,
though they tend to
We may not be disagreeing, in large part because I think the framers had
no generally agreed upon theory (or even broad understanding) of the
distinction presently made between judicial review and judicial
supremacy.
My point is simply this.
A lower federal court reverses a state court decision.
Perhaps I misread Bill's original post. I thought the issue was whether the same court (in my example, this would be the Supreme Court only) could, in any given case, make two different constitutional decisions: (1) nullify the law or (2) refuse to give the law effect. My interest in this issue
With all of this
discussion of the difference between nullifying a statute and refusing to give
effect to it, I wonder how list members analyze Alabama Chief Justice Moore's
announcement that he will not obey a federal court order requiring removal of a
ten commandments monument? The
I analyze Judge Moore's statements as deceptive and misleading (his
description of the Reynolds litigation is so inaccurate as to suggest that
he is either incompetent or dishonest) and contrary to Walker v. City of
Birmingham. He deliberately refrained from seeking a stay of the mandate
of the
Randy Barnett wrote:
I have an article now pending at law reviews called,
The Original Meaning of the Judicial Power, in which I respond to Leonard
Levy and others who claim that judicial nullification of unconstitutional
laws was not established
Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, August 14, 2003 11:43 am
Subject: Re: Marshall Upholding Federal Statutes
Randy Barnett wrote:
I have an article now pending at law reviews called, The Original
Meaning of the Judicial Power, in which I respond to Leonard Levy and
others who claim
I have an article now pending at law reviews called, The
Original Meaning of the Judicial Power, in which I respond to Leonard Levy
and others who claim that judicial nullification of unconstitutional laws was
not established at the time of the founding. The evidence from the
Upholding Federal Statutes
I have an article now pending at law reviews called, The Original Meaning of the Judicial Power, in which I respond to Leonard Levy and others who claim that judicial nullification of unconstitutional laws was not established at the time of the founding. The evidence from
Robert Justin Lipkin wrote:
[a lot about the following: In a message
dated 8/14/2003 2:44:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
whether courts can "nullify" unconstitutional laws,
or whether courts will simply not give effect to unconstitutional laws in
cases pending
:
Could you give us a few cites from
the writings of the Founders recognizing judicial nullification of
unconstitutional federal laws?
Francisco Forrest Martin
- Original Message -
From: Randy Barnett
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 8/14/2003 12:44:54 PM
Subject: Re: Marshall Upholding Federal
Dear Bill,
You are
right about this point. In modern terms, Marbury holds that if you read
the statute the way Marbury was suggesting (as a jurisdictional grant) it
would be constitutional. We might say the law was declared
unconstitutional as applied. ~ As applied to Marbury's case,
in its
]
-Original Message-
From: Randy Barnett
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 11:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Marshall Upholding Federal Statutes
I have an article now pending at law reviews called,
The Original Meaning of the Judicial Power, in which I
17 matches
Mail list logo
