Good quick statement on Appellate jurisdiction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
In nearly all of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, the Court exercises the appellate jurisdiction granted it by Article III of the Constitution. This authority permits the Court to review – and affirm or overturn – decisions made by lower courts and tribunals. Procedures for bringing cases before the Supreme Court have changed significantly over time. Today, cases are brought before the Supreme Court by one of several methods:
* By petition for a writ of certiorari, filed by a party to a case that has been decided by one of the United States courts of appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
* By petition for "certiorari before judgment," which permits the Court to expedite a case pending before a lower appellate court by accepting the case for review before the appellate court has decided it. However, Supreme Court Rule 11 provides that a case may be taken by the Court before judgment in a lower court "only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court."
The reason I posted this is I believe the reason the SC took the case from Washington D.C. is the non-existence of a lower court system. You go straight to Federal Court in D.C. which solves the 'fully litigated in the state courts first' delay for review of a case.
Also, CONGRESS retains the right to review and overturn laws created by the city council and intervene in local affairs.
As a federal judge in this area, you should follow the law, as stated by the Supreme Court. In other words, once the issue is clarified by the SC, the Appellate, and Federal judges will follow that decision, and, enforce the SC ruling.
I wonder how this is going to play out. It's going to be intresting to see what the Federal judges first hearing the cases see as reasonable, and, indeed if they pull from the decision that the standard of review for laws is this new Stevens created, 'reasonable' standard.
I also wonder if the first judge that hears the case on the restrictions, imposed, isn't going to go the extra step to really spank the lawmakers, and mayor. If you wanted to put yourself in position for promotion, and develop a reputation, a conservative judge on the federal bench could make a real name by being the first judge to pull from the decision that the writing implies that the 2A should also be under the strict scrutiny standard, same as the 1A.
Out here, the 9th circuit appellate boards are decided by a random chance lottery. liberal vs. conservative makeup of the judges in the D.C. district, 4 appointed by democrats, 10 appointed by republicans. It appears the odds are good in D.C. for a conservative Appellate review, and, with that in mind, the SC may well figure that the Appellate division will do their work, as they should, and, that the S.C. will not have to review many more cases by the lower D.C. courts.
Anyone know exactly how the Federal government operates the Washington D.C. court system, including the appellate system?
Thanks
PS: I think most judges appointed to the Federal Bench in D.C. view this as a career move, hoping to go further in their career. Janice Brown, a SC justice from Kali was so appointed, and, I went to law school with one of her attorneys. She moved for this reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Brown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit
The court is given the responsibility of directly reviewing the decisions and rulemaking of many federal agencies based in the national capital, often without prior hearing by a district court. Aside from the agencies whose statutes explicitly direct review by the D.C. Circuit, the court typically hears cases from other agencies under the more general jurisdiction granted to the Courts of Appeals under the Administrative Procedures Act. Given the broad areas over which federal agencies have power, this often gives the judges of the D.C. Circuit a central role in affecting national U.S. policy and law.
A judgeship on the D.C. Circuit is often thought of as a stepping-stone for appointment to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are alumni of the D.C. Circuit.
It would appear that unlike other Federal appointments, where the judges are there for life, and don't really care if they are reversed, that is NOT the case with the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
