Talk:Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Supreme Court of Puerto Rico is part of WikiProject Puerto Rico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the people, history, language, and culture of Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help with the tasks listed below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Please do not substitute this template. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
WikiProject Puerto Rico To-do:
|
|
[edit] Law vs. Constitution
I recently changed the opening of this article to read "The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico is the highest court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, having the ultimate judicial authority within Puerto Rico to interpret and decide questions of Puerto Rican Commonwealth law." I replaced "state law," which probably came from some sort of boilerplate for state supreme courts, with "Puerto Rican Commonwealth law." This was further modified to "..decide questions regarding the Constitution of Puerto Rico." Now I'm sure the court does deal with Puerto Rican constitutional matters but is it correct to say that it deals with simple statute law as well? Or does it only handle constitutional questions? --Jfruh 20:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- You are quite right, the Court sees cases ranging from corporate law to even tort law. Of course, these cases must first be appealed to the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals.
However, I am currently doing some research because I do think that Puerto Rican law cualifies as state law because even though Puerto Rico is not a state per se, it is nevetheless part of the federal government of the United States. There is a U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico that manages questions regarding federal law. Therefore, I assume that Puerto Rican law is deemed state law. I researching the info right now. In the meantime, I will revert the first sentence to the one you originally wrote, since the Court jurisdiction is not only within Constitutional Law.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Check out this site (1). It says "State and Terrtorial Law" and it includes Puerto Rico and all the other territories of the U.S. In the end, it is a very interesting debate, but until I see convincing evidence, I think that, like you pointed out, Puerto Rico cannot be seen as part of the state law of the United States.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Within the federal system of the United States, because Puerto Rico is not a state, Puerto Rico law is not "state law." However, for many purposes, Puerto Rico commonwealth law is treated as if it were the equivalent of state law. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that in applying the Supremacy Clause, the Erie doctrine, etc., Puerto Rico law is to be treated the same as state law. The same is provided in many federal court rules. Newyorkbrad 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Earlier Supreme Court?
Puerto Rico had a Supreme Court under the Foraker Act of 1900 and the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917. This was clearly a predecessor of the current Puerto Rico Supreme Court; in fact, I am not sure that the court recognized in the Puerto Rico Constitution of 1952 is considered a new court, as opposed to a continuation of the prior court. Should the 1900-1952 era be recognized in this article? Newyorkbrad 15:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- The current Supreme Court was in fact created by the Constitution of 1952. Article V of the document clearly states so. Then-Governor Luis Muñoz Marín decided to leave in their offices the justices who served in the court prior to the constitution. However, you right, I think we should add a section that recounts some facts of the previous Supreme Court. I think it's relevant because the bound volumes of decisions is the same for both courts (DPR, Decisiones de Puerto Rico).<<Coburn_Pharr>> 19:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for info. I'm away from my books for the weekend but will write something up on this next week, unless someone else gets to it first. Newyorkbrad 19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
The Appointments section appears biased on political issues. I know these things exist, but they should not be mentioned unless adequate sources are found. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 19:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
