Congress has the power to legislate the creation of lower courts. As out lined in article 3 section 1...

Congress has the power to legislate the creation of lower courts. As out lined in article 3 section 1. What is stopping a democratic congress from creating a court between the federal appels level and the supreme court, but make that court have a rule where they cannot rule for 20,30,40,or more years on any one case. The supreme court would still be highest court, just not able to rule on a case until the imaginary court rules... Are the democrats dumb enough for this?

Attached: WLWU2a9.jpg (2448x3264, 877.63K)

Ever heard of the 7th amendment?

Are you retarded? Explain you retarded line of thinking so I can laugh at you.

meant 6th soz.

Supreme court can rule on any controversy
it doesn't even have to be a case.
So they would just skip the court or ignore it.

A fair argument, but I think a speedy trial is moot after appealing anyways. Most cases don't get to the supreme court for years anyway and that's never been an issue before. And owing to the fact a federal court would very likely not be held in same state in which the crime occurred anyways where the standing? All the facets of the 6th will have been met in the initial trial.

United States v. Shipp
They can just obtain original and exclusive Jurisdiction over a case/controversy at any time.

Also, the makeup of the rules are Jursdictional and not legislative
They only can create courts, not set the rules.

In the federal system, the Supreme Court of the United States promulgates court rules for itself and the lower federal courts under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2072.

The supreme court would then have to claim original jurisdiction on every case. Makes sense

They don't have to claim Origin on anything they don't want, except state v state (which is constitutionally obliged)

28 U.S. Code § 2071 - Rule-making power generally states lower courts can make their own rules. Also as these are laws and not part of the constitution they can more easily be changed.

no, they heard the case on first instance there because the contempt of court was against the supreme court itself

because shenanigans begets shenanigans. Whatever one political party does out of the conventional official unofficial rules the other party will retaliate as soon as they get in power and do the same. It is a game that will only result in the decadence of the U.S

...

Bumping interesting thread

It would be easier for Congress and the President to acknowledge Judicial Review a farce and simply ignore the Court.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court has Judicial Review powers, nor does it say the US is to follow Common Law.

Attached: 1657966334303.jpg (732x900, 314.81K)

Do we even need to bring up Marbury v. Madison?

You mean a decision that refutes itself?

We already have too many fucking lawyers and judges.

go on