|
steven787 said: There's an extra comma. It would be so much clearer if it were one of these two. |
You know, if you ever do make it into law school you'll realize how funny that above statement is.
Don't try to get it now, you probably won't. But even if it takes years to get the joke, try real hard to remember what your wrote there. I promise, you won't graduate from law school without finding that really funny.
I suppose I could comment on your long meandering post on writs of certiorari and the Judiciary Act of 1925.
First, you are completely and utterly wrong.
Anything to do with a writ of certioari has to do when the case has already been heard from a lower court and it is being appealed. I was speaking about cases that would have original jurisdiction with the supreme court, and that has nothing to do with writs of certioari by definition.
The supreme court hears cases presented to them on which they have original jurisdiction. They have both appelete and original jurisdiction over suits between States and the federal government. It is up to the plantif to file the suit where they want it heard. I was referring to a hypothetical is a state sued the federal government over this case.
Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
— Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire
