US Politics

[TheMightyEthan]

Mine was more concise.

[Mal]

I've been educated. My baby's summary of thing is the following: The Federal pecking order is SCOTUS, Circuit Courts (CC) and Districts Courts (DC). Each proceeding court will follow the preceding one. DCs follow their CC rulings and whatever rulings the SCOTUS has. DC don't have to follow anything from a different CC. States seems to have a similar system, I think, but if the ruling is anything to do with federal law, the Constitution or even the state constitution then Federal courts will kick in. Seems like when that happens, it starts with the CC.

 

If any of you ever want to dig into the interactions between state and federal courts, feel to do so. It sounds interesting enough and hell, I doubt is it much more complicated than geochemistry of magmas. Also like magmas, I bet the different states will have their own quirks with the federal courts (e.g., magmas will vary by location, god damn do they really vary).

[Mr. GOH!]

Not exactly; state appellate courts' rulings on state law matters, including state constitutional matters, must be followed by all federal courts when that state's laws apply, in general. There are exceptions (especially when we're talking about procedural law rather than substantive law), but the default is federal courts must follow state court's rulings on pure state law. 

 

There's even a fun procedure for federal courts to ask state high courts how the state courts would rule on a matter of state law when a relevant case is pending in federal court. I am not aware if there's a procedure for a state court to ask federal courts to rule on a matter of federal law. I do not think so, because state courts generally have blanket subject matter jurisdiction while federal courts do not.

 

I can guarantee that the interaction between state and federal courts is almost as complicated as the geochemistry of magmas and that it makes a lot less sense. The Federal Courts and Conflict of Laws classes were considered among the most difficult at my law school.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Mr. GOH!

[TheMightyEthan]

I loved Fed Courts, and Conflict of Laws gets real fun real fast.

 

But yeah, I think what's confusing you Mal is that federal courts will sometimes invalidate state constitutional provisions on the basis that they violate a federal constitutional provision, but because it's based on the federal constitution it's actually a federal law question rather than a state law question, so federal courts win.

 

A good rule of thumb (that is exactly that, so it doesn't always apply) is that when state laws/constitutions and federal laws/constitution are in conflict then whichever one restricts the power of the state more will win.  Basically the federal constitution sets a baseline for the limits on state power and protections for citizens rights, but state laws can limit that power or protect those rights even more if they want to.  State constitutions/laws cannot limit the powers of the federal government though.

[SomTervo]

Great stuff, thanks pals.

 

Are states split by geographic location into the 10 circuits? That was actually the main thing I didn't get, haha. The term 'circuit' doesn't give much away. Like Ethan you mentioned "the 10th Circuit also encompasses Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming". So that works by geographic location, right?

[TheMightyEthan]

[Mr. GOH!]

They're called circuits because, back in the late 1700s, the Supreme Court Justices would travel in groups of two and, later, alone (though each would decide cases with a local district judge) to each district court in a given area and hear appeals, and conduct trial court hearings for suits in which the parties were citizens of different states, federal criminal cases, and civil suits in which the United States itself was a party.  The route each judge would travel was thus called a Circuit. over the 1800s, the circuits courts developed and changed; in the late 1800s the modern Circuits Courts of Appeals were created, but the old-school trial circuit courts held on for trial matters until the beginning of the 1900s. 

 

There's a long history of judges at all levels of the law used to make circuits to hear cases or appeals, both in the U.S.A. and elsewhere, incidentally.

[TheMightyEthan]

It was a thing especially in the Western US at the state level that in rural areas without enough legal issues to justify a full-time judge that trial court judges would ride circuit through multiple counties, stopping in each one about once a month.

[TheMightyEthan]

Well apparently the first gay marriage licenses have been issued in my county, in Kansas.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

I'll be waiting for the jokes/right wing rhetoric about marrying Toto.

[Mal]

Got to love how the media is scare mongering about ebola. Though I will say this: Having ebola raging through Latin America is quite the prospect... it isn't something I ever considered.

[TheMightyEthan]

Okay, Kansas update:

 

I misstated before, the marriage licenses weren't actually issued, just applications were accepted. In Kansas there's a 3-day waiting period to get a marriage license, and three days hasn't gone by yet, so none have actually been issued. The chief judge in Johnson County (the biggest county in the state) entered an administrative order for the clerks there to start actually issuing the licenses at the end of the waiting period. The state attorney general filled a suit against that judge in the Kansas Supreme Court to get an order that he can't do that. The KSSC recognized there's inconsistency on this between counties (some counties aren't accepting applications at all, some are but have said the licenses will be denied, some haven't said whether they'll be denied or not, and then Johnson County), so they issued a temporary stay, meaning no licenses will be granted, pending their decision. It's on a super expedited track, with briefs due on October 21 and oral arguments on November 6, with no extensions. The issues to be decided are fairly technical, but ultimately it boils down to whether the 10th Circuit's decision striking down Oklahoma's ban also apples to Kansas's ban. I expect they'll decide it does and order the licenses start being granted statewide.

[Mr. GOH!]

And then it will be appealed to SCOTUS.

[TheMightyEthan]

They'll deny it though, and they'll do like they just did with the ninth circuit and deny a stay pending their denial of cert.

[Mr. GOH!]

Depends how your yokel-infested Kansas Supreme Court rules. 

[TheMightyEthan]

Pretty sure they're going to say the 10th Circuit ruling does apply.

[TheRevanchist]

I thought the 9th circuit is the most overturned court?

 

Speaking of overturned, some friends of our family just had their mom released after 17 years in the big house.

 

http://www.myfoxla.com/story/26755102/woman-who-spent-17-years-in-prison-for-murder-is-exonerated

 

I never met the mom, but, like I said, I'm friends with her kids. So, I see all of the status updates from them.

[Mr. GOH!]

The 9th is the most overturned Circuit Court of Appeals. It also hears the largest number of cases, so that makes sense.

[TheRevanchist]

http://www.cnet.com/news/ftc-sues-at-t-for-limiting-speeds-on-unlimited-data-customers/

 

YES!  I complained about this to AT&T when they started throttling my fucking data.  It's supposed to be "unlimited".  I have been on that plan, but didn't experience any lag/shitty download speed until the World Cup, when I was streaming the games to my phone.  I complained to AT&T, but they just gave me a herp-derp-derp answer.

 

I hope the FTC makes them choke on a fat dick covered in herpe sores.

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, the thing I heard on the radio said ATT started doing it because they wanted to phase the plans out, but it seems like the actual way to go about that would be to discontinue the plans, and as people's contracts come up just say "sorry, that plan doesn't exist anymore, you have to change".

[TheRevanchist]

I wouldn't stay with them without that plan, because they are such dickheads.

 

Is T-Mobile is decent?

[TheMightyEthan]

Around here my only real options are US Cellular and Verizon, because nobody else has network coverage worth shit, so I have no idea.

[Mister Jack]

Will this actually result in any changes? I don't mean to be cynical but when it comes to telecom companies it's hard not to be.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I wouldn't stay with them without that plan, because they are such dickheads.

 

Is T-Mobile is decent?

 

I love my $30/mo plan.

[TheRevanchist]

Thanks FDS. Might be the way to go. :/