It explicitly states that it is not precedent.

 

Then why'd you bring it up like it's the same when it's not?

It doesn't have to be. As Soxbadger said, and I've said, and others have said, the states have any powers they want to take that do not violate federal laws or the federal Constitution. The parameters of execution are delineated in their state constitutions.

 

Seriously, you are just not getting this, and I can't keep discussing it, just to tell you the same thing five times in five different ways of wording it.

 

Some additional googling turned up Florida's brief to the SC.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PDFs/11...O%20Private.pdf

 

They are arguing that it's a plenary police power granted to the States.

 

These inevitable consequences warrant this

Court’s immediate attention. This Court repeatedly

has held that Congress lacks the power to “create a

completely centralized government,” Lopez, 514 U.S.

at 557, because “the Founders denied the National

Government” a “plenary police power” and “reposed

[it instead] in the States,” Morrison, 529 U.S. at 618.

 

This is more or less what I was looking for.

Then why'd you bring it up like it's the same when it's not?

 

A snarky jab at a terrible decision.

A snarky jab at a terrible decision.

 

I thought it was a good decision.

States have all rights not restricted by the federal govt.

 

Furthermore State Supreme Courts are the final say on the interpretation of the State's Constitution. Im sure there are cases where a State Supreme Court interprets basically the same language differently than the US Supreme Court.

I can add another example on to this...California's Prop 8 being overturned by a Federal Court and then being challenged to the US Supreme Court, where it will be upheld on a 5-4 ruling if the current court stays together or perhaps overturned if any of the Republicans are replaced.

I thought it was a good decision.

 

The outcome was good or the reasoning was good? Or both? (Honest, not loaded question. I haven't read the case yet, though I should, and have no opinion on it)

Fifth Circuit Panel of GOP-Nominated Judges Orders DOJ to Say Whether President Obama Believes in Judicial Review

 

In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

 

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. . . .

 

The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

 

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

 

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

 

Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick–both Republican appointees–remained silent, the source said.

 

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don’t have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama’s comments yesterday about judges being an “unelected group of people.”

 

This seems incredibly petty.

Straight to detention for the Obama Administration!

Edited April 3, 201214 yr by StrangeSox

Yay! I get to make a second departmentalism comment in a week! But that doesn't REALLY apply here for two reasons: 1)The power concerned isn't an Executive Power and 2)Departmentalism tends to be favored by conservatives.

 

EDIT: I'm referring to the judges asking the Justice Dept to answer whether the president believes in the legitimacy of judicial review.

Edited April 3, 201214 yr by farmteam

Part of me hopes they meet the junior high requirements of "three pages minimum!!!" by spelling out Y-E-S in huge font, one letter per page.

Oral Argument, starting at 18:00 mark.

SMITH, J.: Let me ask you something a little bit more basic. Does the DOJ recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities.

 

A: Yes your honor, of course, there will have to be a severability analysis.

 

Q: I am referring to the statements by the President from the past few days, to the effect .. . I'm sure you've heard about it, that it's somehow inappropriate for what he termed "unelected judges" to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed . . . what he termed broad consensus and majorities in both houses of Congress. That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority, or to the appropriatness of the concept of judicial review. And that's not a small matter. I want to make sure that you are telling us, and that the DOJ do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of congress or portions thereof in appropirate cases.

 

A: Marbury v. Madison is the law . . .

 

Q: Okay, well I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday, about 48 hours from now, a letter stating what is the position of the AG and the DOJ in regard to the recent statement by the President, stating specifically and in detail, in refenreces to those statements, what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages, single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the President's statement and the position of the AG and the DOJ.

 

[very long pause]

 

A: Okay, and that's our position regarding judicial review?

 

Q: Judicial review as it relates to the specific statements of the president in regard to Obamacare and the authority of the courts to review that legislation.

 

A: Yes, your honor.

 

My favorite part is [very long pause]

My health insurance premiums are actually going down this year. Benefits unchanged.

Another decision day, another notable absence of a ruling on PPACA.

If I understand things, this ruling is now slated for Thursday.

awaiting announcement of what day that'll be, usually wednesdays or thursdays.

 

I just follow this:

http://scotusblog.wpengine.com/

 

but we know it isn't coming today

Edited June 25, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

Thursday, 10AM EDT.

So far the Court has been ruling in favor of the Federal govt.

SCOTUSblog seems pretty sure that Roberts will be the one writing this opinion based on who's written what so far. That doesn't really tell us much, though, because it'll likely be 5-4 striking down the mandate or whole law or 6-3 upholding with Roberts writing to keep it as narrow as possible.

So far the Court has been ruling in favor of the Federal govt.

No, they've been ruling in favor of the Chamber of Commerce. And the Chamber has opposed this bill.

Well, the Chamber of Commerce had no impact on the Immigration Ruling nor on Montana Ruling.

 

That being said, from the article:

 

In the health care case, the Chamber has not taken a position on whether the individual mandate is constitutional, instead arguing only that if the mandate is found unconstitutional, then the Court should strike down the entire Affordable Care Act.

 

I think the entire act being struck down is considered the least likely outcome, thus if you read between the lines and if the Chamber of Commerce is to win again, the bill would have to be found constitutional.

 

Who knows.

Edited June 25, 201213 yr by Soxbadger

The Chamber is wholeheartedly in favor of CU, so there's no doubt that they're in favor of the Montana Ruling.

Well, the Chamber of Commerce had no impact on the Immigration Ruling

 

The Chamber of Commerce supports illegal immigration. Cheap workers.

Its not about assuming what side the Chamber will be on, its talking about cases the Chamber of Commerce actually wrote arguments for (I believe at least).

Without the mandate, the ACA cannot stand as written. You either have to strike down the entire act, uphold all of it, or perform a rewrite and just call it a tax. Without the mandate, as written, you'd effectively bankrupt the entire health insurance industry, and the justices know that.

 

To put it in simple terms, no mandate = wait until your sick or on the way to the hospital to buy insurance...after you leave hospital, cancel it. They cannot reject you for pre-existing conditions, so there is no point in paying for insurance until you need it.

 

That won't just bankrupt the entire insurance industry, it will bankrupt the government programs, too...since suddenly the entire country would be on them all at once.

Without the mandate, the ACA cannot stand as written. You either have to strike down the entire act, uphold all of it, or perform a rewrite and just call it a tax. Without the mandate, as written, you'd effectively bankrupt the entire health insurance industry, and the justices know that.

 

To put it in simple terms, no mandate = wait until your sick or on the way to the hospital to buy insurance...after you leave hospital, cancel it. They cannot reject you for pre-existing conditions, so there is no point in paying for insurance until you need it.

 

That won't just bankrupt the entire insurance industry, it will bankrupt the government programs, too...since suddenly the entire country would be on them all at once.

I'm with you, you have to strike down the whole act if you strike the mandate, but not because the act can't stand on its own if the mandate is struck, instead because the law itself says you have to.

 

Without that part of the law, the Court could strike the mandate, find the rest constitutional, and leave it to Congress to fix the mess it created by writing this new law. That's totally reasonable. The thing that makes it different is that the law itself says the mandate is integral and cannot be severed.

You could strike the mandate and the other big parts, like community rating and guaranteed issue, but still leave many of the other provisions in place.