Dan Epps

I couldn't totally chase it down. In 1867, when Congress amended Section 25 of the Judiciary Act, which is the statute that provides Supreme Court jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction from state courts to the Supreme Court. and the amendment comes to the Supreme Court in a case called Murdoch v. Memphis.

But the amendment, one of the things they did when they amended it was they said for the first time the Supreme Court is allowed to just award execution without remanding the case. This is arising from state courts. Just inner judgment. Yeah, because this had kind of come up. And so that seems to have gone away. It's not in the current iteration of Section 20 of the Judiciary. Oh, interesting.

But the amendment, one of the things they did when they amended it was they said for the first time the Supreme Court is allowed to just award execution without remanding the case. This is arising from state courts. Just inner judgment. Yeah, because this had kind of come up. And so that seems to have gone away. It's not in the current iteration of Section 20 of the Judiciary. Oh, interesting.

The statute no longer says that. And I didn't have time to chase down whether that's one of those things that... got left out of one of the codifications because everybody thought it was obviously true or that it was removed.

The statute no longer says that. And I didn't have time to chase down whether that's one of those things that... got left out of one of the codifications because everybody thought it was obviously true or that it was removed.

But there were these debates in the 19th century sometimes where state courts were thought to be obstreperous on remand and the Supreme Court finally wanted to step in and say, no.

But there were these debates in the 19th century sometimes where state courts were thought to be obstreperous on remand and the Supreme Court finally wanted to step in and say, no.

And so I think the majority is right that this is a thing they can do. I do think it's unusual. Yeah. And so I guess I would have liked a little bit more defense of doing it.

And so I think the majority is right that this is a thing they can do. I do think it's unusual. Yeah. And so I guess I would have liked a little bit more defense of doing it.

Um,

Um,

It is a little funny because it goes back to where we started. It feels like the case is like, well, we might or might not have jurisdiction, but it's ambiguous, so I guess we'll take it. There might be a serious violation based on these notes. It's hard to be positive what's going on, but in the end, our confidence is shaken by this and a lot of other stuff.

It is a little funny because it goes back to where we started. It feels like the case is like, well, we might or might not have jurisdiction, but it's ambiguous, so I guess we'll take it. There might be a serious violation based on these notes. It's hard to be positive what's going on, but in the end, our confidence is shaken by this and a lot of other stuff.

so it's a little ambiguous therefore this case is a yeah can't possibly be can't possibly be affirmed again like we're it's a little weird for the ambiguities to then add up to the yeah definitive yeah so big big big win i mean probably you know you had to feel pretty good as close up once you got the case granted and once you had the

so it's a little ambiguous therefore this case is a yeah can't possibly be can't possibly be affirmed again like we're it's a little weird for the ambiguities to then add up to the yeah definitive yeah so big big big win i mean probably you know you had to feel pretty good as close up once you got the case granted and once you had the

Yeah. I mean, there was a discussion arguing about this about like, do we need a, you know, is there a point in remaining for an eventual hearing or not, et cetera. So I think you, this was here.

Yeah. I mean, there was a discussion arguing about this about like, do we need a, you know, is there a point in remaining for an eventual hearing or not, et cetera. So I think you, this was here.

And I guess I'm not, as you said at the beginning, every step is not obvious, but not obviously wrong. Yeah.

And I guess I'm not, as you said at the beginning, every step is not obvious, but not obviously wrong. Yeah.

I do. So part of it, he now comes in and has these – the amicus brief has these statements about what really happened, claiming that the attorney general's investigation was sort of a setup and – Yeah. And that, but the new statements are unsworn. Yeah. And I just, that all seems very strange to me.