No Warrant-No search

[killerweed420]

Read Article III Section II of the Constitution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the man in question was a citizen of Arizona. It lists instances in which the Supreme Court has power, I don't however see this as being one of them.

To sum up what the article says the Supreme Court can interfere:
1. Cases affecting ambassadors, ministers, and consuls
2. admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
3. controversies to which the U.S. shall be a party
4. controversies between separate states
5. controversies between a state and the citizens of another state
6. controversies between citizens of different states
7. citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states.
8. controversies between a state and foreign nation.

I fail to see where the constitution justifies the supreme court overruling the states supreme court on this issue.

Yes, they have taken it upon themselves to rule on civil rights issues, however, I have failed to see where in the Constitution it grants them that right.

If I'm wrong, by all means post the article or amendment that supports your claim.

Yeah technically you are right. But what should someone do when there civil rights guaranteed by the US Bill Of Rights have been violated by your own state supreme court? Which seems to be happening quite frequently now a days.

[JaggedEdge]

Yeah technically you are right. But what should someone do when there civil rights guaranteed by the US Bill Of Rights have been violated by your own state supreme court? Which seems to be happening quite frequently now a days.

You protest to your state.

[gypski]

Well, since its a Fourth Amendment issue concerning search and seizure, and all the states ratified the constitution, it puts it in the in the purview of the SCOTUS. And that gives the SCOTUS the right to overrule the SCOA. The Fourth Amendment applies equally in all 50 states or at least its supposed to. :thumbsup:

[killerweed420]

You protest to your state.

If your state supreme court is corrupt you should be able to go to the federal supreme court.

[JaggedEdge]

If your state supreme court is corrupt you should be able to go to the federal supreme court.

The Federal supreme court has no right to overturn the state court on that issue. It is far easier to fight your own state than D.C. I'm an hour drive from protesting in my state capitol against an injustice at their hands. It is far easier to fight against a state government than the Feds.

You are also under the assumption the Fed Supreme court has all honorable members which they certainly don't.

Personally, I think our founders fucked up on this one. Supreme court justices should be elected and have term limits.