Check out some similar questions!

TUT317 · Apr 3, 2012, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes ;just overturn it and send it back to Congress. There is no need at all ;nor is it desirable for SCOTUS to give a prescriptive . All they need to do is give their opinion as to why it is unconstitutional .

.

Hi Tom,

Are you telling me that SCOTUS has the power to overturn legislation even before the case is brought before them? Might be wrong, but it doesn't sound right to me.

In fact that would be ludicrous. It would give the judiciary the opportunity to mold legislation as to how they see fit. Isn't it all about limiting the power of the judiciary when it comes to making descriptive decisions?

Are you sure you are not talking about giving an opinion in terms of proof reading legislation to see if it is constitutional in terms of format? In other words, their job is not overturning the content per se. but rather pass muster. That would sound more likely. If this is the case then yes it would be SCOTUS giving a descriptive explanation rather than a prescriptive.

My position is still that once the case actually comes before SCOTUS it's rulings must necessarily contain a descriptive explanation.

Some clarification as to how it is possible for SCOTUS to overturn legislation even before the case gets to them would be appreciated.

Tut

tomder55 · Apr 3, 2012, 05:29 AM

Are you telling me that SCOTUS has the power to overturn legislation even before the case is brought before them? Might be wrong, but it doesn't sound right to me.

No it's not that simple . Someone has to bring the case to court ;and SCOTUS has to determine that they have "standing " to bring the case.

Some clarification as to how it is possible for SCOTUS to overturn legislation even before the case gets to them would be appreciated.

I never said that . I don't know where you are getting that impression.
Everything I've said about the decisions made by SCOTUS has been after hearing a case they gave standing to. What I am saying is that SCOTUS should simply give a law an up or down decision on it's constitutionality ,and to explain why it is . They should not be required ;as the Administration lawyers suggested , to parse through a bill and line item which part of it can remain law and which part must be scrapped . That is where they cross the line into making law... well that ,and when the impose solutions.

TUT317 · Apr 3, 2012, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

No it's not that simple . Someone has to bring the case to court ;and SCOTUS has to determine that they have "standing " to bring the case.
I never said that . I don't know where you are getting that impression.
Everything I've said about the decisions made by SCOTUS has been after hearing a case they gave standing to. What I am saying is that SCOTUS should simply give a law an up or down decision on it's constitutionality ,and to explain why it is . They should not be required ;as the Administration lawyers suggested , to parse through a bill and line item which part of it can remain law and which part must be scrapped . That is where they cross the line into making law ....well that ,and when the impose solutions.

That's what I thought. This is why we have, so and so versus so and so. The history of cases decided by SCOTUS would be a mile long. These are the cases I am talking about.

I am also trying to find one; wherey when a decision is hand down it doesn't come with a prescriptive explanation.

If unsuccessful then my original contention seems to stand. You carn't rule on a law without creating a law.

Actually, I got the impression from your last posting.

"Yes; just overturn it and send it back to congress" You used the word "overturn". Perhaps you were going to say, revise or fix up.

Tut

tomder55 · Apr 3, 2012, 05:54 AM

No I mean overturn
Who can overturn a law pass by congress
Just declare it unconstitutional ;explain why it is unconsitutional ;and then the ball is back in Congress court.

paraclete · Apr 3, 2012, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by TUT317

"Yes; just overturn it and send it back to congress" You used the word "overturn". Perhaps you were going to say, revise or fix up.

Tut

Now Tut you know that's naughty, the court isn't in the position of advising the government how to frame leglislation, but its ruling that the law is unconstitutional overturns it

TUT317 · Apr 3, 2012, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

Now Tut you know that's naughty, the court isn't in the position of advising the government how to frame leglislation, but its ruling that the law is unconstitutional overturns it

Thanks Tom and Clete. I didn't realize that 'overturn' was the term used in this type of thing.

Tut

paraclete · Apr 3, 2012, 10:18 PM

Plain language Tut use the word invalidate if you like

talaniman · Apr 4, 2012, 04:07 AM

Whether it is, or isn't constitutional has yet to be announced. I bet it is.

tomder55 · Apr 4, 2012, 04:33 AM

The President's preemptive smear of SCOTUS makes me think that Kagan gave him a heads-up about the results of Friday's vote. Perhaps he thinks some Chi-town arm twisting will convince Kennedy to change his vote before the June release of the decision ? Look for Spike Lee to tweet Kennedy's address.

tomder55 · Jun 28, 2012, 07:11 AM

.getting conflicting reports on theSCOTUS decision..

tomder55 · Jun 28, 2012, 07:16 AM

OK cleared up now. Obamacare has been upheld by the court . They rejected all the arguments except the absurd contention that forcing people to buy insurance is covered under the government taxing authority . ALL I HAVE TO SAY TO THAT IS BULL SH*T!

NeedKarma · Jun 28, 2012, 07:29 AM

So sad your side lost a really big one. :D

speechlesstx · Jun 28, 2012, 07:34 AM

Go figure, Kennedy voted against the mandate and Roberts upheld. The leftists will be dancing in the streets today. Can't for that arrogant putz Obama to spike the ball.

excon · Jun 28, 2012, 07:37 AM

Hello again, tom:

Big decision. There's going to be a lot of fallout. I think it hurts Republicans across the board. It has implications in the presidential race..

Wow, is all I got to say.

excon

NeedKarma · Jun 28, 2012, 07:39 AM

Such class, calling someone a penis. A great example of the righties.

tomder55 · Jun 28, 2012, 07:45 AM

The question asked in the oral arguments has been answered . There is nothing ;absolutely no limits ,beyond the taxing or regulatory authority of the non-federal Leviathan government of America.

excon · Jun 28, 2012, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

There is nothing ;absolutely no limits ,beyond the taxing or regulatory authority of the non-federal Leviathan government of America.

Hello again, tom:

You, Scalito and the quiet one can lament this all you want.. But, the IMPORTANT discussion is how the constitutional law will be jiggered and expanded to cover all Americans. Frankly, I think it's our FIRST step toward universal coverage, and I think ALL your arguments against it have been severely damaged.

excon

tomder55 · Jun 28, 2012, 07:59 AM

Yeah ironically the President swore to the world that it wasn't a tax ;and that was the argument that idiot Roberts bought . All the other arguments that the government made were rejected . But the court's majority said that anything and everything can be taxed ;and any confiscation of people's property can be done under the government's vast expansive power to tax.

Well I for one remember what the revolution was about .

speechlesstx · Jun 28, 2012, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Such class, calling someone a penis. A great example of the righties.

The word was putz, only you would use the vulgar interpretation of that.

cdad · Jun 28, 2012, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Big decision. There's gonna be a lot of fallout. I think it hurts Republicans across the board. It has implications in the presidential race..

Wow, is all I got to say.

excon

This is a sad day for America as we are getting back to square one where it all started. A revolution over taxation. Having yet more rights stripped is going to cause major waves. And this is a new previously unknown power given to the government. I believe they got it wrong. What is next? Force us to buy solar or tax us out of our homes? Its within the law now to do so.