TexasCHLforum.com

A significant part of ObamaCare has been ruled unconstitutional in Virginia today. Get ready SCOTUS! One question I have in my mind now is, what happens if the SCOTUS decides not to hear any of these cases? They wouldn't do that on something like this, would they?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/health-c ... d=12377565" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Forgive me if I didn't see this posted elsewhere, but I believe Texas is in this fight as well:

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2010/12/05 ... obamacare/

C-dub wrote:A significant part of ObamaCare has been ruled unconstitutional in Virginia today. Get ready SCOTUS! One question I have in my mind now is, what happens if the SCOTUS decides not to hear any of these cases? They wouldn't do that on something like this, would they?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/health-c ... d=12377565" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think this may go on for years before SCOTUS has a real chance to get to it. I believe they will wait until these now few conflicting district court decisions go through the various courts of appeal. Although it may be literally true that the route might be short-circuited with a little imagination and smart lawyers, I cannot conceive that even the court we now have would feel comfortable getting into this dog fight too early.

Elmo

now if we can get them to say the same thing about Social Security...

C-dub wrote:A significant part of ObamaCare has been ruled unconstitutional in Virginia today. Get ready SCOTUS! One question I have in my mind now is, what happens if the SCOTUS decides not to hear any of these cases? They wouldn't do that on something like this, would they?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/health-c ... d=12377565" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Justice Dept has already announced that they are going to appeal the decision, so we'll see, won't we?

I would like to think that the conservative 4 plus the centrist 1 would agree with the lower court. But, these are the same justices who voted against private property rights in Kelo v. City of New London:

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. The Court held in a 5–4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The City eventually agreed to move Kelo's house to a new location and to pay substantial additional compensation to other homeowners. The redeveloper was unable to obtain financing and had to abandon the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot.

In the end, the original property owners lost their land, which was located on a beachfront and could never be compensated for at its real value, and the robber barons who took it away from the owners with the city's complicity finally had to abandon the project. So what once been family homes that had been in the families' possession for generations is now a vacant lot.

So much for justice. I'm not always impressed with the wisdom of the supremes.

I remember that case. I was very disappointed.

C-dub wrote:I remember that case. I was very disappointed.

The precedent it set threatens my family's estate personally. I'm more than disappointed. I'm angry about it.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

C-dub wrote:I remember that case. I was very disappointed.

The precedent it set threatens my family's estate personally. I'm more than disappointed. I'm angry about it.

AM,

A bunch of us were angry (annoyed?) by the Kelo decision. I am personally intimately familiar with the property SCOTUS permitted the State of Connecticut to steal and destroy. What a shame.

I would suggest that the battle over what a public use is has moved to Austin, and with the new session's likely political leaning this may be the time we see meaningful action on the question. During the last session the legislature came close to overruling Kelo in Texas, but it left exceptions which continue to bother many. If you have influence in Austin, now is the time to use it.

You might want to take a look at this web site, which has a discussion of the status of eminent domain law in Texas now. It may be considered a sales pitch by a law firm, and it is not impartial, but I suspect you will be pleased with its partiality.

http://www.barronadler.com/admin/images ... tion/1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo

The Annoyed Man wrote:In the end, the original property owners lost their land, which was located on a beachfront and could never be compensated for at its real value, and the robber barons who took it away from the owners with the city's complicity finally had to abandon the project. So what once been family homes that had been in the families' possession for generations is now a vacant lot.

So much for justice. I'm not always impressed with the wisdom of the supremes.

The founding fathers would have tarred and feathered the government officials who tried to steal their family home so someone could build an inn or shoppe on the property. Or maybe they would hang the thieves from trees.

Times changed and the government of the people, by the people, for the people, did perish from the earth.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Doesn't this give The SCOTUS original jurisdiction as opposed to appellate jurisdiction?

AFCop wrote:Doesn't this give The SCOTUS original jurisdiction as opposed to appellate jurisdiction?

Article III of the Constitution does indeed provide that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in the case of a State vs. the United States, AFCop, but (there is almost always a "but") the Supreme Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction in such cases.

Title 28, Sec. 1251, U.S. Code, provides:

"(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens."

This issue was troublesome early on, but the Supreme Court ultimately decided that U.S. District Courts do have original jurisdiction in such cases also.

I have not read the complaint(s) in the healthcare case reported by the OP, so I certainly cannot go more deeply into the jurisdictional issue(s). I suspect there were several.

Elmo