LA SC won’t revisit law merging New Orleans court clerks; city to seek SCOTUS review

quote:

---

Moreno said the city plans to seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court “to ensure these important constitutional questions receive full consideration.”

---

Talk about a waste of money.

Not at the SCOTUS. It’s a purely state issue. This is another form of grift—spending taxpayer money on frivolous litigation to help campaign contributors.

quote:

---

SlowFlowPro

---

Yep. Supreme Court ain't even going to think about areview of this.

It obviously followed state law, state Supreme Court refused to review it, its signed sealed and delivered much to 4cubbies demise.

Waste of money on NOs part, but thats nothing new

So the LA legislature eliminating a state position - clerk of court is a constitutional issue? No conception of what the U S Supreme court is about. Morons.

State court of last resort making a determination of state law and the state constitution.

Yeah...SCOTUS will get right on that.

quote:

---

Every issue is purely a state issue until it reaches the SCOTUS.

---

Federal issues go to SCOTUS, State issues go to the state supreme court. This is part of the separation of powers.

That said, the city theoretically [can appeal it to SCOTUS but SCOTUS would agree to hear it only if they feel it meets at least one of two very strict criteria:

1. The lawsuit raises a specific federal question.
--SCOTUS will completely ignore the appeal if it only involves interpretations of the state's constitution or city charters.

2. The city overcomes "political subdivision" standing limits.
--Legally, cities are creations of the state. Under a principle known as the Hunter Doctrine (from Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh), cities generally cannot sue their parent state in federal court over structural governance or municipal power.

This means the City has to prove at least one of the following:

-Federal Constitutional Violations: the City must prove that the state's action violates the U.S. Constitution (like the Equal Protection Clause or the First Amendment, for examples).

-Federal Statutory Violations: the City must claim the state is violating a federal law, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

--The "Individual Rights" Exception: while a city cannot usually sue a state for funding or governance tweaks, some federal circuits allow a city to sue if it is defending the unique constitutional rights of its individual citizens (such as voting access) rather than just the city's corporate power.

The City's case meets none of those marks.

If SCOTUS remarks on it at all, it will likely be to be to say that since the state supreme court already ruled that the State acted within its own state constitutional rights, they (SCOTUS) will defer to that decision as state courts have absolute authority over how state power is structured within their borders (see: State Preemption Doctrine).

quote:

---

Good vibes can easily trump thorough legal analysis in real life. This is AMERICA.

---

The Kamala strategy.
Nice.

Only if you ignore the reality of the situation and pretend the issue is only “did the state have the authority to dissolve an office it created 150 years ago?”

If you consider that the state sanctioned an election, affirmed the outcome of that election, then nullified the outcome of that election by eliminating the office only after the outcome was known— things get a bit harrier.

quote:

---

Thanks for explaining that.

---

quote:

---

But I reject your explanation

---

quote:

---

because I hate it and it isn’t fair.

---

Progressive brain rot in all its glory