Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (104943)	3/19/2005 3:43:45 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793799

We were talking about a proposed federal law giving federal courts jurisdiction to review certain state cases I thought we were talking about the Post editorial that I posted, which was not about the constitutionality of the Florida law. In fact, it made the point that there were no constitutional questions at stake. [There is no great constitutional question to litigate here.] If you had constitutionality in mind, your comments about majorities make sense. In a criminal case, you'd use habeas corpus, but you can't use habeas corpus in a civil case. Civil cases can't jump from state to federal court unless there is a basis for federal jurisdiction. Maybe there already exists a basis for federal jurisdiction but I can't think of it. Thanks for that clear explanation of your thinking. But what Congress is doing still seems to me like a bass-ackwards way to address constitutionality. If there were a question of constitutionality, wouldn't the Supreme Court have accepted the case? What is it about the Florida law that you think is unconstitutional?