Posted on 02/03/2011 7:25:27 AM PST by Matchett-PI
OK.. right after throwing the pie..
In this interest of factual accuracy, that is not entirely true. If the Court denies certiorari, then no binding precedent is established beyond the precedent that is established in the Circuit that the case originated.
In this particular case, we're talking about a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a federal statute. Generally speaking, that is a VERY high threshold to reach, especially since the Court decided US v. Solerno back in the late 80's. As a purely practical matter, given the importance and rarity of such cases, it's HIGHLY unlikely that if this challenge prevails on appeal (and thus far, both Hudson and Vinson found merit to the challenge), that it wouldn't be heard by the Court. Remember, you only need four to hear the case, not five.
Modification or not, I asked that you provide an authoritative citation or at least an example where this occurred. In contrast, I can provide a large number of counter-examples where it was not true. You can start with this list:
ACTS OF CONGRESS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Not all of those will apply. In some of them, the district court held something unconstitutional, but the circuit court disagreed, and then the Supreme Court agreed (with the district court). In others, it was the district court that got it wrong first, and the circuit court was the first to agree that it was unconstitutional.
A US district court decision does not automatically change the law in the entire US. It certainly calls things into question, but it's not even a binding precedent outside that district.
Revoking a law nationwide requires a decision by the Supreme Court, although you can achieve the same thing with a Circuit Court case that becomes precedent nationwide. That's why the Supreme Court rarely takes a case unless the Circuit Courts disagree -- there's no need.
I looked up US v. Salerno, and I see the connection. But, I haven't been able to find out how that case played out.
It looks like the Circuit Court did indeed find the statute unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court reversed.
What happened during the period between the Circuit Court's ruling and the Supreme Court's ruling? Was Salerno released?
[My rationale for the question should be obvious: I'm trying to find some historical context for what should be happening now]
Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you - probably shouldn't have mentioned that case. Relative to Obamacare, it really doesn't matter (he wasn't, he was convicted before his bail appeal could even be argued before the Court).
Salerno, as it relates to Obamacare, created (or expounded) on the standard for a facial challenge to a federal statute. That's how it's relevant. Essentially, it holds that to prevail on a facial challenge, plaintiffs must demonstrate that there are no circumstances in which the statute could be seen as Constitutional; Which, legally speaking is a fairly high threshold.
It'd be nice if that were a declarative statement. For example, amending the First Amendment to read "Congress shall make no law."
Any vice president of the United States is one heartbeat away from the presidency.
Thanks. I have been scratching my head...that is the clearest explanation I have heard.
BINGO!
Spot on!
They have courage. Like our soldiers, they have courage. And what is courage? Courage is fear that has said its prayers.
Let's hit our politicians with this reminder...remind Boehner, McConnell, etc. that they must find that courage within themselves, and ACT on it, for God's sake. Remind these politicians that soldiers perform with courage every day. What in the hell is their excuse for their sorry display?
IMO, "no" to both. Due in part to the lack of a severalbility clause if it is declared unconstitutional for any state for any reason the whole thing goes down in flames.
The Virginia judge declared only the requirement to buy health insurance unconstitutional.
The problem for the libs though, and they have admitted this, is that this clause is the main thing that funds the whole program. Without forcing people to buy, there will never be enough willing participants to run it. It will collapse before it ever gets going.
Will Scotus combine them all, or will Scotus hear one to the exclusion of others?
They can do whatever they want, but my guess is that they won't combine them because the actual points of both cases are very different. However, if they rule that one is unconstitutional (and I think they will) they might refuse to rule on the other because the issue is mooted. The law would already be dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.