Art. III, Sec. 1. Judicial Power and Tenure of Judges

For article, “In Re: The Supreme Court of the United States, Report and Resolution of the Conference of Chief Justices,” see 21 Ga. B.J. 139 (1958). For note on amenability of dependents of servicemen and nonmilitary employees to court-martial overseas, see 9 J. of Pub. L. 252 (1960). For article, “The Selection and Tenure of Judges,” see 2 Ga. St. B.J. 281 (1966). For article examining Justice Cardozo’s thought on legal method and the legitimacy of judicial authority, see 15 J. of Pub. L. 122 (1966). For article discussing the philosophy of Professor Philip Kurland on the extension of judicial power by the Warren Court and its entrance into the political realm, see 15 J. of Pub. L. 230 (1966). For article, “The Concept of Judicial Policy-Making: A Critique,” see 15 J. of Pub. L. 286 (1966). For article discussing the presidential power of judicial appointment, as exercised under Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 145 (1971). For article, “Chief Justice Burger and Extra-Case Activism,” see 20 J. of Pub. L. 533 (1971). For article “The Role and Impact of the Supreme Court and Judicial Decision-Making in the Evolution of American Federalism,” see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 457 (1972). For article, “Judicial Removal of Federal Judges,” see 11 Ga. St. B.J. 157 (1975). For article, “Removal and Discipline of Federal Judges,” see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 681 (1980). For article discussing the separation of powers implications of implied rights of actions, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 973 (1983). For article surveying 1982 Eleventh Circuit cases involving bankruptcy law, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 1209 (1983). For article, “After ABSCAM: An Examination of Congressional Proposals to Limit Targeting Discretion in Federal Undercover Investigations,” see 36 Emory L.J. 75 (1987). For article, “Plying the Erie Waters: Choice of Law in the Deterrence of Frivolous Appeals,” see 21 Ga. L. Rev. 653 (1987). For article, “Judicial Privilege,” see 22 Ga. L. Rev. 89 (1987). For article, “The Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act: Will Judges Judge Judges?,” see 37 Emory L.J. 45 (1988). For article, “The Constitution in the Supreme Court: 1946-1953,” see 37 Emory L.J. 249 (1988). For article, “Preserving Judicial Integrity: Some Comments on the Role of the Judiciary Under the ‘Blending’ of Powers,” see 37 Emory L.J. 587 (1988). For article, “Is Disparity a Problem,” see 22 Ga. L. Rev. 283 (1988). For article, “An Overview of the New Federal Sentencing Guidelines,” see 25 Ga. St. B.J. 16 (1988). For article, “More Myths of Parity: State Court Forums and Constitutional Actions for the Right to Shelter,” see 38 Emory L.J. 615 (1989). For comment, “Pendent Party Jurisdiction After Finley v. United States: A Trend Toward Its Abolition,” see 24 Ga. L. Rev. 447 (1990). For article, “Agencies Interpreting Courts Interpreting Statutes: The Deference Conundrum of a Divided Supreme Court,” see 61 Emory L. J. 1 (2011). For article, “Talking Textualism, Practicing Pragmatism: Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Approach to Statutory Interpretation,” see 51 Ga. L. Rev. 121 (2016). For comment, “Invisible Justices: Supreme Court Transparency in the Age of Social Media: Invisible Justices: How Our Highest Court Hides from the American People,” see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 787 (2016). For comment, “Invisible Justices: Supreme Court Transparency in the Age of Social Media: Myth or Reality?,” see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 849 (2016). For comment, “Invisible Justices: Supreme Court Transparency and Policy-making at the Supreme Court,” see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 903 (2016). For comment, “Supreme Court Transparency in the Age of Social Media,” see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 927 (2016). For article, “How Both the EU and the U.S. are ‘Stricter’ Than Each Other for the Privacy of Government Requests for Information,” see 66 Emory L.J. 617 (2017). For article, “Effective But Limited: A Corpus Linguistic Analysis of the Original Public Meaning of Executive Power,” see 36 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 607 (2020).

diction to try.

Jurisdiction to try any case or class of cases may be withheld altogether; but once Congress confers jurisdiction to try a case it cannot withhold power to decide the case according to the applicable law. Payne v. Griffin, 51 F. Supp. 588, 1943 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2214 (D. Ga. 1943).

Power to limit jurisdiction of district courts.

Congress’ power to establish federal district courts includes the discretionary authority to limit and create exceptions to the jurisdiction of those courts. As a result, where Congress grants exclusive jurisdiction over a particular type of claim to a specific agency or tribunal, or explicitly takes jurisdiction away from federal district courts, the federal district courts are bound by that decision. United States v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 795 F. Supp. 1131, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7744 (N.D. Ga. 1992).

Understanding source of Constitution’s meaning.

The United States Constitution, not the United States Supreme Court, is the source of the Constitution’s meaning; the United States Supreme Court has no power to amend the Constitution through interpretation; and the text of the United States Constitution has not been amended since the LIFE Act (Georgia Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act (LIFE), 2019 Ga. Laws 711 (2019 Ga. HB 481)) was enacted. Thus, the United States Constitution means today what it meant when the LIFE Act was enacted in 2019, even if the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution has changed. As a result, the trial court erred in concluding that, even though the LIFE Act complies with the United States Constitution today, the LIFE Act violated the United States Constitution when the LIFE Act was enacted. State of Ga. v. SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, 317 Ga. 528, 894 S.E.2d 1, 2023 Ga. LEXIS 234 (2023).

Am. Jur. 2d.

2 Am. Jur. 2d, Administrative Law, § 60. 4 Am. Jur. 2d, Appellate Review, § 69. 9 Am. Jur. 2d, Bankruptcy, §§ 394, 403, 757. 24 Am. Jur. 2d, District of Columbia, § 21. 32 Am. Jur. 2d, Federal Courts, §§ 1, 3, 20, 21, 22, 451, 519. 32A Am. Jur. 2d, Federal Courts, § 563. 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judges, § 11, 50, 57. 61C Am. Jur. 2d, Pollution Control, § 1649.

C.J.S.

6 C.J.S., Armed Services, § 192. 8A C.J.S., Bankruptcy, § 187. 35A C.J.S., Federal Civil Procedure, § 182. 36 C.J.S., Federal Courts, §§ 1, 401. 48A C.J.S., Judges, § 199 et seq. 91 C.J.S., United States, § 5.