Say I object to their invocation of “God save this honorable Court” or their ten commandments display.
Who do I sue? Is it Blalron vs the Supreme Court, and if its appealed to the Supreme Court wouldn’t they all have to recuse themselves?
It’s not called the Supreme Court for nothing. Their word is the final interpretation of the law.
I don’t know but maybe you could sue each justice individually and hope it doesn’t get to the Supreme Court.
They are so powerful if you think about it they could get away with anything…a speeding ticket? They could just just appeal it to the Supreme Court that they happen to be a member of.
Well, you just have to petition Congress to either impeach the Supreme Court Justice you have a problem with, or to write an amendment over ruling the Supreme Court, and get that though Congress & enough State Legislatures.
My WAG would be that if you had an issue with the SC building you’d sue Rehnquist as the Chief Justice, since he’s responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Court.
A Federal court, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is in a similar position. A lawyer objects to an illegible list of text on the court’s seal because he thinks it represents the 10 comandments. He wants it removed, so he has filed suit against “the United States”. The news story doesn’t say so, but I preseume he filed the suit in US District Court, Northern District of California, so conceivably the 9th Circuit might could eventally hear an appeal in the case.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/10849072.htm
This is completely false information. We have checks and balances in our government, and Supreme Court justices are not above the law. They can be impeached.
What sort of federal questions might a speeding ticket raise?
Of course, the opposite issue is equally problematic: If Congress passes a statute disbanding the Supreme Court, does the Supreme Court get to decide whether the statute is constitutional? (It probably is not because the Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court)?
Whom does one sue in the OP? I agree with Otto. I would consider adding the Judicial Conference of the United States, but since the Supreme Court promulgates its own procedural rules, the Chief Justice is probably the best bet.
Ignore the final question mark in the first paragraph.
Substantive Due Process. Remember how you said SDP can be used to justify anything? 
If committed in D.C. or a territory, or on a Federal reservation, it would automatically be a Federal question. If prosecuted under state law for an occurrence on Federal land, an enterprising lawyer could make a Federal-question case out of it.
Ok. Yes, it’s true that there are federal arguments that a lawyer could make that would not get the lawyer disbarred. But this begs two important questions:
- Would the issue be sufficiently important and controversial to justify the Supreme Court granting certiorari?
- Would a Supreme Court Justice be able to convince five other justices (we all hope the ticketed Justice would recuse, right? That leaves eight, and five would still be required for a majority) to rule in the Justice’s favor?.
- I notice that in the case discussed in the article, the plaintiff sued the United States of America and Cathy Catterson as Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The issue is not a stark in this case because lower courts can borrow judges from other circuits, so the District Judge could be a visiting judge from another circuit and the appellate panel could also consist of three visiting judges (this does not usually happen, but I could not find a rule prohibitting it.)
Well, you are alwaysentitled to hope.
I chose my words carefully. If it were otherwise, hope would be uneccessary. OTOH, going on a hunting trip with a party and being the defendant in the case are two very different things.
I have been unable to phrase a Google search appropriately to get a cite but I thought members of Congress were allowed to speed if they were going to a session of Congress. Perhaps SCOTUS justices can do the same if this is correct (going to a SCOTUS session that is)?
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Aug1999/081999/criminalclass4-081999.htm
There does not appear to be an analogous immunity provision in Article III of the Constitution.
Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides:
There is not a lot of case law interpreting this section, but I would assume that if a Senator and Representative were stopped for speeding on his or her way to a session of Congress, he or she could probably be given a citation, but not arrested.
<sigh>
Does anyone actually READ the Constitution?
**Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)–between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 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. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. **
From this we may deduce:
A) Congress may not pass a law disbanding the Supreme Court, since it is explicity mandated by the Constitution. Congress could, conceivably, pass a law disbanding all other Federal Courts.
B) The only way to get a federal judge off the bench is via impeachment
c) You don’t sue the Supreme Court, you sue the United States.
Some do. I read portions of it a least once a week.
- I knew this, which is why I said the law would probably not be constitutional.
- I’m not sure I agree with your analysis.
- Congress passes unconstitutional laws all the time, and the Supreme Court tells them when they do. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (establishing the principle of judicial review).
- My question was what would happen if Congress passed a statute that disbanded the Court? I didn’t ask for opinions about the statute’s legality.
Well, that and assassination.
::sigh:: Cite?