Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Yes, but diversity jurisdiction was a statutory grant of J from Congress; federal question jurisdiction (which DeLay is stripping here) isn't. I don't know that I can reconcile why diversity J is a statutory grant with the "citizens of diferrent states" language in the Constitution, but diversity J has always been a situation where Congress giveth and Congress taketh away (even from the Supreme Court), and federal question hasn't. There must be a case on that. Not Me?
|
Aren't there certain categories of federal statute-based cases committed to state courts? I don't remember exactly, but I thought there were cases like railroad liability or something that provided a federally based right of action in state court.
That said, I think the distinction you would have to look for is something along the lines of
bivens--that is, there's a right in need of a remedy.
That said, why is raising a federal question is state court problematic? Wasn't that how the courts operated in the 1700s before there were lower appelate courts? And isn't it still? Plenty of people sue in state court for at least violations of hte constitution. I'm not saying it's good policy, just that' it's not unc.
