Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think lawyers love to spout case law because stare decisis is one of the main tenets of our common law system.
And, stare decisis is the reason that however the Supreme Court rules on the healthcare reform act, the decision will have to be studied carefully and is bound to cause confusion because there are issues of federal law and several state laws involved. That means vertical stare decisis and horizontal stare decisis may come into play.
Our parallel courts system and 51 different constitutions just about guarantees an outcome few people other than lawyers will understand.
I don't envy the Justices. Having to wade through the various state and federal court decisions must be a monumental headache.
And, stare decisis is the reason that however the Supreme Court rules on the healthcare reform act, the decision will have to be studied carefully and is bound to cause confusion because there are issues of federal law and several state laws involved. That means vertical stare decisis and horizontal stare decisis may come into play.
Our parallel courts system and 51 different constitutions just about guarantees an outcome few people other than lawyers will understand.
I don't envy the Justices. Having to wade through the various state and federal court decisions must be a monumental headache.
How do you think the state constitutions will come into play? The issue should be about nothing more than if the health care law's mandate falls under one of the enumerated powers... As much as we like to talk about if a law is good or bad, the issue is actually if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional.
As such, it would seem that Lopez is the controlling precedent. Although, to be honest, I haven't followed the health care debacle very closely.
I will say that social security or medicare is not analogous in this case, and I do believe some have used those programs as examples...
How do you think the state constitutions will come into play? The issue should be about nothing more than if the health care law's mandate falls under one of the enumerated powers... As much as we like to talk about if a law is good or bad, the issue is actually if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional.
As such, it would seem that Lopez is the controlling precedent. Although, to be honest, I haven't followed the health care debacle very closely.
I will say that social security or medicare is not analogous in this case, and I do believe some have used those programs as examples...
I say that because the AHA includes taxing and Medicare provisions which might very will conflict with state law and/or state constitutional provisions. For instance, Virginia passed a law just before the signing of the AHA which declared its citizens may not be compelled by federal law to purchase things they don't want. That alone might involve state constitutional questions if the Court rules that Virginia has standing to challenge the federal law under their states law. Additionally, 25 other states are involved in the case, each of which may may mount additional challenges under their own state laws if the power of Congress to mandate healthcare purchasing is upheld. The other 24 states may have state court issues if it is not.
The point is that no matter how the SC rules on the issue of the constitutional powers of Congress and the separate but connected issue of severability, it's ruling may not be the end of the matter.
Great masses of people have been successfully "reeducated" and I'm way behind the times.
Make that de-educated and I agree with you. Public schools and mass media are brainwashing young people with secular humanism and revisionist history. They now have the approximate awareness and perspective of a house plant.
in the 1990s, the GOP, on the federal level, favored an individual mandate for health care. It was endorsed by Newt Gingrich and the entire leadership.
The problem is that the GOP has thrown themselves so far right that positions they held just a few years ago they now call Communist/Socialist/Fascist.
Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.[2][3] The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees, under provisions in the 2005 USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization.[4][5][6][7][8]
Ya, isn't it just amazing how they just forget about that. How about Neut? Heck, he would just eliminate any court he doesn't like. For the last 20 years or so I have heard a neverending wailing about court decisions coming from the right side. I think it's a very wise thing the president is commenting on the case. The court is in a tight spot. Justice Roberts as chief justice knows very well that the decision the court makes will define this court. He probably does not want to go down in history as the stooge of the obstructionist GOP. For that reason above all else I think the SCOUSA will rule in favour.
You need to learn something: The Congress is given the power by the Constitution to create or eliminate courts.
Courts are for the purpose of adjudicating disputes. They are not to "make law". Congress alone is the lawmaking body. Courts are to decide cases based on the law.
If a Court (or a judge) violates the Constitution in this regard, the Congress has every right to remove the judge (by impeachment). It also has the right to eliminate the entire court for willful disregard of the Constitution.
This is part of our system of "checks and balances".
Judicial activism (using the courts in a way that was not intended by the Constitution) is a problem that is undermining our system. Newt was right in his comments. Courts need to be reigned in and returned to their proper roll ... or be eliminated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
