Original jurisdiction

So I don't think, with respect, that that characterization of Rule 21 is correct.

I think it is true that Rule 21, which is labeled Original Jurisdiction under the Constitution, sweeps in two constitutional provisions in Colorado, Article VI, Section 2, which grants the Supreme Court superintending control, and Article VI, Section 3, which grants the Supreme Court power to issue certain writs.

But I think that the key fact here is that whichever strand of the Constitution you're proceeding under, the rule itself is talking about original jurisdiction in the Colorado Supreme Court, and it could not be clearer-

If we're unsure-

... that the rule provides for a self-contained proceeding.

That is, it, I, with respect, I don't think that that is accurate.

I think the best thing that my friend on the other side has pointed to is the fact that the decretal language in this case remanded.

But I think the problem with that argument is that in Atlantic Richfield itself, the Montana Supreme Court's decision not only remanded, but affirmed the lower court, and yet the court said this is, uh, the exercise of original jurisdiction.

I keep seeing the headlines.

Thank goodness for David Latt at Original Jurisdiction.

I thought his write-up was pretty clear in this.

But I remain a bit confused.