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

[Jimbo101]

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

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."

[Angry Dragon]

1. republicans make me sick

[dhill926]

14. literally...

[jaysunb]

2. And, what next ? n/t

[2naSalit]

3. FTFFS!!

I can't say what I really feel as it is not acceptable parlance for a mixed audience, and would probably get me kicked off DU.

[potone]

4. That's okay.

I am sure that we all feel the same way.

[2naSalit]

9. I am sure you are correct....nt

[edhopper]

5. That isn't what is meant

in Section 2.

Section 2 - The Text
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;-]8 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.]9

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 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.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

[Solly Mack]

10. Thank you

[Jimbo101]

12. It looks like King went to college long enough to avoid getting drafted.

He does seem to have issues with literacy as well as reality

[Warpy]

6. This piece of idiocy will stand

only if the USSC decides to throw out Marbury vs. Madison, something that would limit their power so severely that I sincerely doubt it would happen.

Even Steve's mail order law degree should have educated him on that point.

[louis-t]

7. Hey Steve, you asshole, SCOTUS says it's NOT

unconstitutional. Suck on it, you moron.

[longship]

8. Hey King! Separation of powers! read your fucking Constitution! nt

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Uh, I'm not exactly a Constitutional expert, but....

this strikes me as questionable.

[underpants]

13. Did they cite Bush v. Gore in which the court said it couldn't be used as precedent?

Because that would at least be circular logic.