Supreme Court Rulings

[Aguila Blanca]

Zrex: Let's assume the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case. Then it will come down to what the 9th Circuit decides. They will either uphold their original decision (which would be good) or reverse their decision (which would be VERY bad).

I don't think that's how it works. The SCOTUS refusing to hear a case does not remand the case to the lower court for reconsideration. It leaves the ruling in place, so the answer would be that if the SCOTUS declines to hear the case, the ruling stands in the 9th District, and other disctricts may either agree or disagree.

Should other districts rule the opposite way on the same question, then at some point the SCOTUS would probably have to hear the case in order to resolve the discrepancy.

 

[ctdonath]

SCOTUS refusing the case leaves Stewart verdict as is - and that being that the only person now allowed to make legal unregistered homemade machineguns is Bob Stewart (read the conclusion of the verdict very carefully). It will take another court case to generally revoke 922(o), and probably yet another to force SCOTUS review of 922(o).

 

[ProGlock]

I don't think that's how it works. The SCOTUS refusing to hear a case does not remand the case to the lower court for reconsideration. It leaves the ruling in place, so the answer would be that if the SCOTUS declines to hear the case, the ruling stands in the 9th District, and other disctricts may either agree or disagree.

Should other districts rule the opposite way on the same question, then at some point the SCOTUS would probably have to hear the case in order to resolve the discrepancy.

I was trying to say that, I think I just did so very badly. Thanks for clearing that up

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

So, if the Senate has the power to ultimately regulate the Court, should we sound the buzzer when "litmus test" questions are asked of nominees?

No, there's no reason too. The will of the people should be reflected to the greatest extent possible. Senatorial review of SCOTUS decisions is one tool, discreetly probing a court nominee for an indication of his or her views is another.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

I jsut finished a huge Constitutional Law paper and wanted a second opinion from the People

You're lucky. The 2nd was barely discussed in my ConLAw class, which was excellent elsewise.

 

[SteveS]

Read Scalia & Thomas' dissent in Dickerson v. US 530 US 428 and see if you still feel like it's the US Senate that's the genuine danger.

Excellent dissent and good discussion. I enjoy Scalia and Thomas (I am going to see Scalia speak next Tuesday). I wasn't trying to suggest that the Senate is the danger and that we have nothinig to fear from the courts. I still believe that the legislature is a huge source of unconstitutional acts and by giving them the power to override the Court tips the separation of power too much towards the legislature. I'll admit that part of my distrust comes from the fact that I have Carl Levin and Debbie Stabmenow as Senators

I think that there are sveral decisions (such as Roe v. Wade) that rest on weak arguments, but I just think that the system you describe would be worse. I may be wrong, though (wouldn't be the first time).

 

[RealGun]

The will of the people should be reflected to the greatest extent possible.

Make that the will of the current majority, serving the loudest constituent voice, never mind the Constitution as it now reads. To me, that's strictly liberal. I think I would be simply looking for past rulings that might have departed from a striaghtforward reading of the law. Probing for what extralegal bent a nominee might have doesnt make sense to me. Making the upcoming hearings all about overturning Roe v. Wade is going to make me want to throw up from a Constitutional standpoint. Let's be clear on what the motive is for stacking the Court, pro or con. It sure as heck ain't about guns.

 

[flatrock]

We need a Constitutional Amendment that stipulates the US Senate may review the Supreme Court's decisions: with a simple majority needed to affirm or remand, and a super-majority to over-rule and render a Senate decision.

If that happened, then it would only take a super-majority in the Senate to take away our rights. That's a very bad idea.

We need to get rid of the activist judges, and go back to requiring an ammendment to the constitution to change it, rather than a judicial opinion.