A Radical or Rational SCOTUS Session?
After one of the most historic United States Supreme Court sessions in years, emotions ran high and charges of radicalism ran amuck as the Justices handed down rulings on immigration enforcement, national healthcare, campaign finance law, stolen valor and more. But in the end, did SCOTUS simply uphold the law of the land? Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, get the legal facts behind the decisions from New York University School of Law Professor Roderick Hills, Jr. and Temple University Beasley School of Law Professor Jan Ting.
Special thanks to our sponsors, Clio, AppRiver, and PC Law.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 38:16 — 27.3MB)
You bring up several cases which I will address in future posts. I believe the critical decision of our lifetime lies in “National Healthcare”. For the first time in history, our freedom of choice, by Supreme Court decree is denied! What a shame.
Historically, the Supreme Court had very limited power under our Constitution which changed in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison). The Court’s foundation of power is borne of FAIR JUSTICE or “good law” precisely because it has little power, Constitutionally. Once the people lose trust in the Court, the Supreme Court’s power diminishes. Future decisions will begin to carry less weight.
It must be remembered that judicial decisions are a mix of the rules of law and political persuasion. That is, the people must believe in the Court’s decision for that decision to carry with it power to incarcerate or tax. The court must be viewed as dis-interested and not influenced by Congress or the President. Why? Because the Supreme Court has no appreciable Constitutional Power. OK so far?
Congress’s greatest powers under the Constitution lie in the Commerce Clause and it’s power to TAX & SPEND. The Commerce Clause has been used numerous times over the years to trump individual State assertiveness. Remember, we live under a Federalist style of Government which grants to the States certain powers. Most notably, police power which is of most recent concern with Arizona.
The Commerce clause was most notably used by Congress (Feds) in the 1960′s and upheld by the Supreme Court. Briefly, blacks were denied the right to sleep and eat in certain places while traveling. The Court ruled that these folks had to travel along interstate highways and by necessity must eat and sleep while traveling the interstates. Thus, the Federal Government’s constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce trumped the State’s power to deny interstate travelers the right to eat or sleep.
In our present case of National Healthcare (national equates to Federal, so I will use the term) FEDERAL HEALTHCARE, Congress originally invoked their Commerce Clause power over the States but they were shot down by lower courts.
Although the issue would appear to be “penalty” v. Tax, Robert’s (deciding vote) chose to cancel your freedom of choice by using Congress’s most powerful constitutional grant to tax. That is, you (or your employer) purchase/accept the terms of Federal healthcare or be sanctioned.
I do not profess to be a Constitutional Scholar although my 3rd year law school professor was. I do know this much. Future Supreme Court Decisions will carry less weight. No longer be “the law of the land” and begin to revert back to pre “Marbur”. I also know that we are in an era of power struggling & claiming between the Feds and the States just as the States asserted their power prior to our Civil war during the 1850s (Dread Scott decision – 1852).
Most local Attorneys, particularly those in solo practice act in the capacity of a paralegal. They must satisfy the local Judge first if they are to support their practice and family. The goal seems to be “file the proper paperwork” with canned affirmative defenses and go on to the next client.
Ninety percent of cases end in pre-trial settlements. Most local attorneys fear going to trial which equates to re-studying the rules of evidence and so on. Too much work? lol.
The solo practitioner becomes specialized in pushing paperwork as the basis for feeding their family, just as a paralegal. I am not saying this is wrong. I am saying there is no comparison between the typical solo and a large law firm with “cream of the crop” attorneys.
I remain un-interested but the fact is, money buys justice in most cases whether we choose to accept it or not. Look at the OJ case or the Lohan case(s) or Spechtor case and so on. Just some thoughts.