SCOTUS Rehearing

[Darkwind]

Rule 44. Rehearing | Supreme Court Rules | LII / Legal Information Institute

It seems that a 'rehearing' on SCOTUS Rulings can be petitioned for under Rule 44.

What do you Conservatives think? Should it be done?

Apologies if this has been posted already, I did not see a thread on this and this falls under Healthcare political debate.

 

[Si modo]

Rule 44. Rehearing | Supreme Court Rules | LII / Legal Information Institute

It seems that a 'rehearing' on SCOTUS Rulings can be petitioned for under Rule 44.

What do you Conservatives think? Should it be done?

Apologies if this has been posted already, I did not see a thread on this and this falls under Healthcare political debate.

Nah. And the chances of getting one are slim to none. IMO, it's a good ruling.

 

[Darkwind]

Rule 44. Rehearing | Supreme Court Rules | LII / Legal Information Institute

It seems that a 'rehearing' on SCOTUS Rulings can be petitioned for under Rule 44.

What do you Conservatives think? Should it be done?

Apologies if this has been posted already, I did not see a thread on this and this falls under Healthcare political debate.

Nah. And the chances of getting one are slim to none. IMO, it's a good ruling.

I could not disagree more profoundly that it was a good ruling.

 

[Sinjorri]

as much as i want to let it ride out, its time for the people to pay for their votes and if that means we're screwed let the rich run away and let the poor finally figure out what we conservatives have been trying to educate them on.

 

[Peach]

ts time for the people to pay for their votes

Poll taxes were found unconstitutional decades ago, sorry to break the news to you.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's a horrendous ruling but why would we think a rehearing would change anything?

No. We need to repeal it. And that means we need to win some elections.

 

[Si modo]

Rule 44. Rehearing | Supreme Court Rules | LII / Legal Information Institute

It seems that a 'rehearing' on SCOTUS Rulings can be petitioned for under Rule 44.

What do you Conservatives think? Should it be done?

Apologies if this has been posted already, I did not see a thread on this and this falls under Healthcare political debate.

Nah. And the chances of getting one are slim to none. IMO, it's a good ruling.

I could not disagree more profoundly that it was a good ruling.

I understand. I don't like it either. But, what I don't like is what Congress did, not what the SCOTUS did. I am so against legislating from the bench. IMO, the SCOTUS worked with the tools they had rather than invent rules.

The dissent, IMO, is perfect; but, the SCOTUS also has a duty to preserve as much of the actual law that they can.

For those reasons, yes, I think it is a good ruling. But, I don't have to like it.

Now, Congress has a duty to make a law that is constitutional. That should say a lot about the incompetence of the sort of "lawmakers" who were in office at the time.

 

[Jackson]

I think people are ready to take care of this issue in the voting booths.

 

[Avatar4321]

Have to disagree Si. The decision was exactly that, relegislating from the bench. Congress made it clear that Obamacare wasnt a tax and then the courts make it a tax to save the legislation. That's the very definition of judicial activism.

Had the Court followed the law, it would have been struck down and Congress would have been charged to find another way if they wanted to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rule 44. Rehearing | Supreme Court Rules | LII / Legal Information Institute

It seems that a 'rehearing' on SCOTUS Rulings can be petitioned for under Rule 44.

What do you Conservatives think? Should it be done?

Apologies if this has been posted already, I did not see a thread on this and this falls under Healthcare political debate.

I think rule 44 applies to a rehearing at the appellate level when they petition for it to be heard before the entire court instead of just 3 judges.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe you people could get Orly Taitz to take this up.

 

[Darkwind]

It's a horrendous ruling but why would we think a rehearing would change anything?

No. We need to repeal it. And that means we need to win some elections.

It is a chance for Roberts to do the right thing. A repeal of the legislation does NOT end the precedence that this ruling set. Case law and precedence are major players when it comes to judicial rulings.

 

[Darkwind]

Rule 44. Rehearing | Supreme Court Rules | LII / Legal Information Institute

It seems that a 'rehearing' on SCOTUS Rulings can be petitioned for under Rule 44.

What do you Conservatives think? Should it be done?

Apologies if this has been posted already, I did not see a thread on this and this falls under Healthcare political debate.

I think rule 44 applies to a rehearing at the appellate level when they petition for it to be heard before the entire court instead of just 3 judges.

That's not really how I read it. As long as you can file, pay the filing fee, all within the 25 day upper end, then the case is reviewed one last time.

 

[Darkwind]

I think people are ready to take care of this issue in the voting booths.

That does not solve the Precedence issue.

 

[Darkwind]

Nah. And the chances of getting one are slim to none. IMO, it's a good ruling.

I could not disagree more profoundly that it was a good ruling.

I understand. I don't like it either. But, what I don't like is what Congress did, not what the SCOTUS did. I am so against legislating from the bench. IMO, the SCOTUS worked with the tools they had rather than invent rules.

The dissent, IMO, is perfect; but, the SCOTUS also has a duty to preserve as much of the actual law that they can.

For those reasons, yes, I think it is a good ruling. But, I don't have to like it.

Now, Congress has a duty to make a law that is constitutional. That should say a lot about the incompetence of the sort of "lawmakers" who were in office at the time.

How is it that you come to this conclusion? The SCOTUS has a duty, and only one duty, to ensure that the powers of the Congress and the Executive do not exceed their given authority as outlined in the Constitution. When Chief Justice Roberts wrote that it was not their job to protect the people from the consequence of their actions, he fundamentally altered the entire role of the SCOTUS.

It is precisely the role of the SCOTUS to protect the people from a corrupted government by holding any attempts at overreach as null.