GOP Bill Would Ban Supreme Court From Citing Its Own Obamacare Cases

[DonViejo]

By TIERNEY SNEED Published JANUARY 3, 2017, 6:17 PM EDT

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) hates Obamacare so much that he doesn't even want the Supreme Court to cite its own major Obamacare cases in future opinions, according to a bill he introduced Tuesday.

The bill itself list the names of major lawsuits the Affordable Care Act has faced at the Supreme Court and bars them "from citation for the purpose of precedence in all future cases."

"It was my first order of business on the morning after ObamaCare passed into law, March 24, 2010, to draft and introduce my full, 100% repeal of ObamaCare," King said in a press release announcing the legislation. "By prohibiting the Supreme Court from citing ObamaCare cases, we will be truly eradicating this unconstitutional policy from all three branches of government so that the repeal will be complete."

The bill claims that "Under Article 3, Section 2" Congress is allowed to "to provide exceptions and regulations for Supreme Court consideration of cases and controversies."

more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/steve-king-obamacare-supreme-court

[alarimer]

1. This seem unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has ultimate say over all laws in the country.

[still_one]

2. It sure does. Isn't that a violation of separation of powers?

[unblock]

5. here's the relevant section of the constitution:

2: 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 appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


i think in the case of obamacare, "a state" would be one of the parties(?), so the first sentence would apply and congress has no say in the matter. congress only can make exceptions and regulations for "all the other cases".

i'm no expert on this area of constitutional law, i don't know what case history there's been on such exceptions and regulations.

[Shrek]

8. There is precedent for removal of SCOTUS jurisdiction by Congress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_McCardle

Chief Justice Chase, writing for a unanimous court, validated congressional withdrawal of the Court's jurisdiction. The basis for this repeal was the exceptions clause of Article III Section 2.[2] But Chase pointedly reminded his readers that the 1868 statute repealing jurisdiction "does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised." Since the Court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, the second question was not answered. Since Congress withdrew jurisdiction to hear the case, McCardle had no legal recourse to challenge his imprisonment in federal court.

Durousseau v. United States, 10 U.S. 307 (1810) held that Congress's affirmative description of certain judicial powers implied a negation of all other powers. Creating such legislation was legitimate under the authority granted them by the United States Constitution. By repealing the act that granted the Supreme Court authority to hear the case, Congress made a clear statement that they were using this Constitutional authority to remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The court had no choice but to dismiss the case.

[pnwmom]

11. That's not the same as not allowing them to cite their own precedents

for their legal reasoning.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. That's unconstitutional. It violates the principles of Marbury v. Madison.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter and interpreter of the United States Constitution. Another branch of federal government cannot limit its scope of review and interpretation.

[tritsofme]

10. The constitution gives the Court original jurisdiction over certain matters

But allows Congress to remove from their jurisdiction any other matter.

The constitutional question, to which I don't know the answer or even if it is clean cut, is whether this sort of case would qualify under the Court's original jurisdiction that cannot be altered by Congress.

[pnwmom]

12. And the only body that could decide that would be SCOTUS.

Somehow I doubt they'd want to give up the practice of citing their own precedents. If the Congress could do this for Obamacare, they could do it for anything.

[tritsofme]

13. This is an enumerated power of Congress, I don't think courts would interfere.

I think the main question would be around the Court's original jurisdiction.

Regardless such a bill would never pass the Senate, so we are not likely to find out.

[pnwmom]

14. It's not an enumerated power to say a Court can't cite its own precedent.

That would be a very novel interpretation of the law.

[tritsofme]

15. "to provide exceptions and regulations for Supreme Court consideration of cases and controversies."

I'm not sure what sort of limits this imposes on Congress' regulatory power, but it seems very broad.

There are strong norms against stripping and weakening independent courts, but we know much they care about that...

[pnwmom]

16. This isn't about "regulations for. . .consideration of cases" -- i.e. which cases can be considered.

It's about how to interpret the law using the Court's own precedents. Congress can't tell SCOTUS how to interpret the law.

[tritsofme]

17. Interesting, I thought he was trying to limit jurisdiction

I agree this particular bill looks highly questionable.

[pnwmom]

19. He might be. But he's very unlikely to succeed. The SCOTUS won't take well

to Congress telling it how to interpret the law.

[global1]

4. So Why Don't The Repugs Just Disband SCOTUS Altogether?.....

Right now they deny President Obama his nominee for SCOTUS. We have a 4-4 tie anyway so there will be no progress. They won't have to take the chance that one of Trump's nominee's for SCOTUS would not rule in favor of them. So why have a Supreme Court at all?

If the Repugs just disband SCOTUS - they can use the Supreme Court Bldging for RNC Headquarters.

They already wanted their get out of jail card with the dissolving of the House Ethics group.

Might as well make this 'so called mandate' and complete sweep by the Repugs - the 'trifecta' complete.

Just do away with SCOTUS and have your way with us. Can't get anymore 'deplorable' than that.

[4Tone]

9. Don't give them any ideas.

Who am I kidding, they've already imagined it a million times over.

[Initech]

6. The GOP continues to throw the constitution under the bus!

[progressoid]

7. God, I hate that asshole.

My hatred burns with the heat of a thousand suns.

[McCamy Taylor]

18. Illegal as shit. Designed to make it look like King is "doing something" for the voters back home.

Prediction: even the folks who voted for him will not be fooled and they will treat it is a slap in the face.