Quote Originally Posted by killerweed420
Actually it is one of the few things constitutionally that fed court can do. If its a civil rights issue, which is what this is, they should have the right to take it all the way to the federal supreme court.
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.
JaggedEdge Reviewed by JaggedEdge on . No Warrant-No search Finally one for the people. :thumbsup: Supreme Court limits warrantless vehicle searches 3 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) â?? The Supreme Court has ruled that police need a warrant to search the vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers. The court's 5-4 decision Tuesday effectively limits the authority of police to search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect. Rating: 5