Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="donner" data-source="post: 3473754" data-attributes="member: 277">You&#039;re right that it&#039;s what original jurisdiction means. But the SCOTUS doesn&#039;t have to take the case, even if it&#039;s state v state. (IIRC, it recently refused to hear the case when Oklahoma and Nebraska sought to challenge Colorado over it&#039;s pot laws).Especially if the issue in question isn’t a matter of original jurisdiction. Anyone with standing can challenge these states regarding the constitutionality of the process. It’s not a matter of determining state borders, where no other party could bring suit. From what i&#039;ve read, states must seek &quot;leave to file&quot; an original bill of complaint, and such a motion is not granted as a matter of course. And that one of the factors the Justices look to is whether the issues in the case can be resolved in other cases in the lower courts, even if not between the same parties. So if the constitutionality is challenged elsewhere the court may defer to those cases and not take up the state v state challenge.Or at least according to one Con Law professor i heard. You may have better information than i do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="donner, post: 3473754, member: 277"] You're right that it's what original jurisdiction means. But the SCOTUS doesn't have to take the case, even if it's state v state. (IIRC, it recently refused to hear the case when Oklahoma and Nebraska sought to challenge Colorado over it's pot laws).Especially if the issue in question isn’t a matter of original jurisdiction. Anyone with standing can challenge these states regarding the constitutionality of the process. It’s not a matter of determining state borders, where no other party could bring suit. From what i've read, states must seek "leave to file" an original bill of complaint, and such a motion is not granted as a matter of course. And that one of the factors the Justices look to is whether the issues in the case can be resolved in other cases in the lower courts, even if not between the same parties. So if the constitutionality is challenged elsewhere the court may defer to those cases and not take up the state v state challenge. Or at least according to one Con Law professor i heard. You may have better information than i do. [/QUOTE]

Verification