I love it when right-wingers suddenly start screaming about the Constitution and jurisdiction and the like whenever they think doing so will justify ignoring a court ruling they don't like.
The latest post from Bryan Fisher is a case in point:
Although tyrannical judge Susan Bolton won’t like to hear this, her federal court is referred to in the Constitution as an “inferior” tribunal. She certainly has given us no reason to doubt the appropriateness of that term in her case.
The problem here is that the Constitution plainly gives “original jurisdiction” to the Supreme Court in “all cases...in which a State shall be Party.” That’s from Article III, Sec. 2. You could look it up.
The state of Arizona is without question a party in this suit. The named defendants are:
“State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity.”
...
The bottom line here is that Judge Bolton does not have the slightest constitutional authority even to hear this case, let alone issue misbegotten and ill-informed rulings on it.
My hope continues to be that Arizona will follow the Constitution, ignore Judge Bolton’s ruling, which has no legal weight, and implement the law as written by the elected representatives of the people of Arizona. Why should they allow themselves to be dictated to and pushed around by this petty, little tyrant of a judge who didn’t even have the right to receive this case in the first place?
Apparently the decision is meaningless because Judge Bolton did not have the authority to hear the case as the Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction" in "all cases...in which a State shall be Party."
Does that mean that the federal judge who yesterday refused to dismiss Virginia's lawsuit challenging health-care reform likewise has no constitutional authority and that his decision carries no legal weight and can be ignored?
After all, Virginia is clearly a party to this lawsuit: "Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius."
Fischer can look it up.
