by Ted Noel, American Thinker:
I know. You’re tired of pundits opining on the unconstitutionality of various courts declaring that Trump can’t fire people or that he must send USAID money, keep sex deniers in the military, and so on. In those cases, the judges often get outside their lanes, accepting cases that Congress assigned to other courts or not to the courts at all.
For example, Congress explicitly ordered that immigration cases have to go through immigration courts. The appeal from those courts is through the Circuit Court of Appeals, bypassing petty tyrants such as James Boasberg, who, if you’ve been listening, isn’t on an Immigration court. He’s a judge in a District Court, the level that Congress said should never see an immigration case. There’s also good authority that, when it comes to alien enemies, the courts are out of the picture entirely. But the Supreme Court sits on its thumbs.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
It’s time to change gears. Once again, we’re in the Southern District of New York, based in Manhattan (like Judge Boasberg). But this time, the Judge is Edgardo Ramos, and the case is Calce v. City of N.Y. This should have been a really simple one. Calce (and several others) work in New York City. Co-plaintiff Kennedy lives in Connecticut. All of them would like to buy stun guns to carry for self-defense. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the mere threat of losing a constitutional right is enough to get them into court. They don’t have to get arrested first. Thank heaven for small favors.
Image by Grok.
But that’s all Calce gets. She’s in the communist court for New York, which has no regard for the law. I know you think I’m overstating the case, but hear me out. New York Penal Law § 265.01 bans possession of stun guns. Simply having one is enough to get you thrown in jail. The law is explicit. You don’t have to have any kind of criminal intent. But this 1985 law is blatantly unconstitutional. Don’t take my word for it. We’ll get there in a bit.
The problem isn’t that the law is unconstitutional. It’s that the judge doesn’t care that it’s unconstitutional. And he gives the same degree of concern to his standing as a judge of an “inferior court.” No, that doesn’t mean that the District Court isn’t as good as others. It means that, as Hebrew National hot dog ads said, he “answers to a higher power.” Or at least he’s supposed to.
Article III of the Constitution opens with “The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” That means that the District Court is at the bottom of the food chain. Between it and the Supreme Court lies the Court of Appeals for its Circuit. The Circuit Court is the court designed to correct “reversible error.” If the District Judge screws up, it’s the Circuit’s job to fix it. Above the Circuit is the Supreme Court, which is designed to solve the tough cases and, in the words of John Marshall, “affirmatively declare what the law is.” In doing that, it establishes precedents for the lower courts to apply.
Once a precedent is established, the inferior courts, both Circuit and District, are obligated to follow it. As District Judge Hendrix said in U.S. v. Rahimi, he would rather rule differently, but he is “constrained by the Fifth Circuit’s decision in McGinnis. This Court cannot depart from that precedent unless and until the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court directs otherwise.”
Read More @ AmericanThinker.com
