12345678910111213141516171819202122232425
Official - Subject to Final Review
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xKANSAS, :Plaintiff :v. : No. 105, Orig.COLORADO. :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xWashington, D.C.Monday, December 1, 2008The above-entitled matter came on for oralargument before the Supreme Court of the United Statesat 10:04 a.m.APPEARANCES:GEN. STEVE SIX, ESQ., Attorney General, Topeka, Kan.; onbehalf of the Plaintiff.GEN. JOHN W. SUTHERS, ESQ., Attorney General, Denver,Colo.; on behalf of the Defendant.1
Alderson Reporting Company
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425
Official - Subject to Final Review
C O N T E N T S
ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGEGEN. STEVE SIX, ESQ.On behalf of the Plaintiff 3
GEN. JOHN W. SUTHERS, ESQ.
On behalf of the Defendant 26
REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF
GEN. STEVE SIX, ESQ.
On behalf of the Plaintiff 48
2
Alderson Reporting Company
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425
Official - Subject to Final Review
P R O C E E D I N G S(10:04 a.m.)CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We'll hear argumentfirst this morning in Case 105 on our original docket,Kansas v. Colorado.General Six.ORAL ARGUMENT OF STEVE SIXON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFMR. SIX: Mr. Chief Justice, and may itplease the Court:Article III makes a clear distinctionbetween the Court's appellate and original jurisdiction,and expressly grants Congress power to make exceptionsand regulations for appellate jurisdiction, but Congressis not granted the same power over originaljurisdiction.CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: That's an extremelysensitive clause in Article III. We can decide thiscase without relying on the distinction you justdiscussed, can't we?MR. SIX: Well, I think can you, and theCourt certainly can interpret the statute not to evenreach the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court andavoid that constitutional conflict. And I think thestronger reading of the statute arrives at that very3
Alderson Reporting Company
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Transcript of Suthers' arguments in Kansas v. Colorado
340
Reads
0
Readcasts
1
Embed Views
