I am over my limit, but let me explain, since fed jur is something I do.
To get a case into federal court, you need either a suit between citizens of different states with a certain amount in controversy or a federal question. A federal question is not one of or pertaining to the federal government. It is a case "arising under" federal law. That means that the plaintiff has to make a serious case that the defendant has violated federal law, that is why we can hear the case. Not any such allegation will do.
Moreover, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is largely discretionary. That means they can hear pretty much what they like, but they don't normally take cases that the district court would have to take because they theoretically pose a federal question, but would dismiss immediately because the claim is ridiculous.
The arguments that the S.Ct should not have taken the case because the federal question was not "substantial," that is, that a district court would have dismissed the Bush claims as ridiculous, is set out very clearly in the dissents. As I say, the per curiam opinionwould not have been acceptable as a law school exam until last night. --jks _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com