(07-09-2014 10:12 AM)jh Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 08:17 AM)VA49er Wrote:  10th grade was a long time ago. What has to happen to overturn a US Supreme Court decision?

It depends on the nature of the decision. Technically only the Supreme Court can actually overturn a decision, but there are ways for others to effectively negate a decision's legal effects.

1. The only way for a decision to actually be overturned is for the Supreme Court changes its mind in a later case. Relatively rare, but it happens. This is more common in cases involving constitutional matters because it is so hard for anyone else to modify a decision. If Congress disagrees with an interpretation of a statute, they can just fix the statute making the Supreme Court more reluctant to revisit statutory interpretations.

2. If the decision was based on the interpretation of the Constitution then the only way anyone else can effectively overturn the decision is by amending the Constitution. Because they would be changing the Constitution it would not overturn the decision (everyone knows why the 11th Amendment was passed, but its text doesn't say the Supreme Court decision it is effectively overruling was wrong) but would overturn the legal effect of that decision.

3. If the decision was based on the interpretation of a statute, then all that needs to happen is for a new bill to be passed modifying existing statutes or adding new ones. Again, this only effectively overturns the decision but does not actually do so because it changes the body of law.

4. It can be ignored and changed circumstances can make it clear that the decision no longer has any legal effect. For example, there is an old decision that says a state can bar women from being lawyers. This decision will probably never be overturned because a state would have to pass a law barring female lawyers for a challenge to make it back to the Supreme Court, but the decision has effectively been reversed and women cannot be prevented from being lawyers.

The Hobby Lobby decision was based on an interpretation of RFRA and the ACA. RFRA was a statute passed in response to a Supreme Court decision, Smith v. Employment Division of Oregon, saying that the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause did not provide a religious exemption from neutral laws of general applicability. It did not overturn the decision but provided additional statutory protection for the free exercise of religion on top of the basic protections provided by the Constitution. RFRA applies to all laws passed by congress unless there is language exempting the law from RFRA.

If the Democrats were actually able to pass a bill (politically impossible as has been noted) then they would be able to eliminate the religious exemption from the contraceptive mandate. Just as RFRA did not overturn Smith, this would not overturn the Hobby Lobby decision, so there is no separation of powers issue. It would, however, create a new legal framework effectively rendering the decision moot.

Of course, that would not quite end the game. The new statute could, and almost certainly would, be challenged on constitutional grounds. How that would turn out would depend on the court. They might vote as in Hobby Lobby, or one or more of the majority might choose to give deference to congress, as the court is prone to do from time to time.

(07-09-2014 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Of course, that would not quite end the game. The new statute could, and almost certainly would, be challenged on constitutional grounds. How that would turn out would depend on the court. They might vote as in Hobby Lobby, or one or more of the majority might choose to give deference to congress, as the court is prone to do from time to time.

I realize that we are speculating about a hypothetical bill with virtually no prospects of passage, which makes discussing specifics difficult, and I understand that the Supreme Court can be unpredictable, but what would be the basis for a successful challenge? It seems like a First Amendment challenge is foreclosed by Employment Division (for all the many faults of the ACA, it is hard to argue that it is not a neutral law of general applicability), but that's a Scalia opinion and I have never heard that case discussed as one in any danger of being overturned. There could be an Equal Protection challenge if nonprofit corporations are exempted while for-profit ones aren't, but the government would likely just have to satisfy rational basis and would almost certainly be able to do so. I just don't see any real hook for a constitutional challenge, at least not one with a chance of making it all the way back up to the Supreme Court.

(07-08-2014 08:12 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 08:01 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  OK libs, it's the law of the land and now you're going to fight it. Remind us again how fighting the SC's decisions is a waste of taxpayer money. You must have said it a 100 times before.

Quote:WASHINGTON — Democrats in Congress said Tuesday that they had developed legislation to override the Supreme Court decision on contraceptives. The bill would ensure that women had access to insurance coverage for birth control even if they worked for businesses that had religious objections.

The bill, put together in consultation with the Obama administration, would require for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby Stores to provide and pay for contraceptive coverage, along with other preventive health services, under the Affordable Care Act.

The measure could be on the Senate floor as early as next week, Senate Democrats said. House Democrats are developing a companion bill, but it faces long odds in the House, which is controlled by Republicans. Speaker John A. Boehner described the Hobby Lobby decision last week as “a victory for religious freedom.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/us/pol....html?_r=1

If this passes companies like Hobby Lobby will just drop healthcare benefits.

Which is exactly what the liberals want. Government as the sole provider.

(07-09-2014 11:31 AM)jh Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Of course, that would not quite end the game. The new statute could, and almost certainly would, be challenged on constitutional grounds. How that would turn out would depend on the court. They might vote as in Hobby Lobby, or one or more of the majority might choose to give deference to congress, as the court is prone to do from time to time.

I realize that we are speculating about a hypothetical bill with virtually no prospects of passage, which makes discussing specifics difficult, and I understand that the Supreme Court can be unpredictable, but what would be the basis for a successful challenge? It seems like a First Amendment challenge is foreclosed by Employment Division (for all the many faults of the ACA, it is hard to argue that it is not a neutral law of general applicability), but that's a Scalia opinion and I have never heard that case discussed as one in any danger of being overturned. There could be an Equal Protection challenge if nonprofit corporations are exempted while for-profit ones aren't, but the government would likely just have to satisfy rational basis and would almost certainly be able to do so. I just don't see any real hook for a constitutional challenge, at least not one with a chance of making it all the way back up to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court wants to hear something, they can and will find a way. And given the crap that the majority has taken over this, if those five are still on the Court I suspect they would find a way. I haven't really thought that much about litigation strategy, but I'm guessing some research would come up with a way to present it to get to the court.

(07-08-2014 10:41 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 09:43 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  This is just a pathetic stunt by the Dems who know it has no chance of passing in the House. This is a flagrantly partisan attempt to gin up more of the war on women rhetoric.

Kinda of like voting 50+ times to repeal ACA by the Repubs knowing the vote to repeal won't pass. Pot meat Keatle?

You don't even know how wrong you are about the things you think you know. Go find those mythical 50 votes to repeal. Read up a bit. Not just the DU idiots, or Auntie pinko or wherever else you get your misinformation, but actually look it up.

While you're at it, compare those bills and efforts to zerO's own extralegal, independent efforts to "repeal" his very own legacy legislation.

It should be eye opening. But I won't hold my breath on that.

This is just funny stuff.

Quote:“The one thing we’re going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men,” Mr. Reid said Tuesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/us/pol....html?_r=1



Clarence Thomas can only look down and sigh. Is there no end to the distortions that Democrats will stoop to when describing this case?