-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Replying to @webdevMason
To be fair, a sufficiently large supreme court is essentially abolished, since it is harder and harder to coordinate. In many ways the Supreme Court seems more trouble than it is worth. The British don't need it, why does the US?
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @SamoBurja @webdevMason
What would be the rule if you abolished the Supreme Court (which requires a Constitutional amendment to do, but assume you did)? Does the circuit court of appeals for the particular region in question decide the federal law for that region, which may differ from other regions?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The reason I ask is because it seems somewhat pointless to have state court _and_ federal court, if federal court is just a slightly larger region than state court. The point of federal court is that it's unified across states. Know what I mean?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Or are you suggesting that federal courts would go away, and state courts would decide the meaning of federal law, so federal law would actually be different in every state?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.