Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSCOTUS Original Jurisdiction
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/125128 U.S. Code § 1251 - Original jurisdiction
(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.
(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.
Look at b1. In the investigation of the Trump/Russian connection, the Russian ambassador and other Russian diplomatic characters are parties to the question. Now, if we just had a Justice Department with any integrity, we could bring a case to the SCOTUS, which has original jurisdiction in such matters.
Sadly, we do not have such a justice department, and the SCOTUS is tainted as well. But, it's a nice fantasy to consider.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 2218 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
SCOTUS Original Jurisdiction (Original Post)
MineralMan
May 2017
OP
Stallion
(6,476 posts)1. I Think That Would Require Them to Be Formal Parties in the Controversy
not just witnesses or persons with evidence
MineralMan
(146,350 posts)2. The language is amply vague.
There appears to be evidence that they were, indeed, parties to actions that affected the 2016 elections and influenced the Republican Party Platform with regard to Russia.
But, we do not have an administration that would take any such action, so the question is moot, really.
rsdsharp
(9,234 posts)3. It's not vague a all.
"Party" is a term of art. A party is a plaintiff, defendant, or third party defendant. It could also include an intervenor or a person or entity who settled in the appropriate circumstance.
The term party presupposes that a lawsuit has been initiated. Courts do not get involved in investigations. There isn't an active civil suit or criminal case pending, so that subsection of the judicial code is not applicable.