It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Take a Hint? Supreme Court Rejects 5 Rulings in a Row From West Coast Bench

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Take a Hint? Supreme Court Rejects 5 Rulings in a Row From West Coast Bench


The Supreme Court may be sending a message to one of the country's most liberal appeals courts, unanimously overturning five consecutive cases out of the 9th Circuit in less than a week.
As the nation's biggest circuit, representing most of the western United States, it should come as no surprise that the 9th Circuit has more cases heard before the Supreme Court than any other jurisdiction -- in turn resulting in more reversals. But the latest string of rulings is unusual even for the 9th, which often is at odds with conservatives on the Supreme Court. The fact that the rulings were unanimous can be seen as a signal from on high that the circuit needs to get in line.




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Wow...I know the 9th circuit has been at the edge of normalcy for sometime, but I have never seen any action like the Supreme Court just took. Essentially throwing out 5 9th circuit rulings within one well, all were unanimous, and the opinions in the USSC rulings essentially told the 9th circuit to fix their rectal-cranial inversion in diplo speak.

For the decisions to be unanimous makes it even more intresting (to me nayways) because its unusual in and of itself. With the varying backgrounds on the USSC it just struck me that they all would agree on these topics.

The cool thing is the rulings from the SC told the 9th circuit to quit interfering in the afffairs of the States. They have been instructed through the SC opinions to take local court rulings as precedent and use them in their rulings.

As much as the courts torque me off for legislating from the bench, these rulings actually impressed me.

Score 1 for the states? I wonder if the latest movement by the people in terms of politics and change / bipartisanship / individual rights over the group and accountibility of Government to the people has made an impact on the Supreme Court.


Now, if they can reverse the assinine imminent domain law...



edit on 2-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Wait a minute! The Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical. When those guys start kissing Fox News ass our country has gone completely to the right.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Now, if they can reverse the assinine imminent domain law...


How about getting rid of the blasted COMMERCE CLAUSE ruling!

Much of our troubles with the crooked megalomaniacs in the District of Criminals can be traced to this Supreme Court ruling.




...Before adoption of the Constitution, states, under the Articles of Confederation, had erected protectionist barriers that interfered with the free flow of trade in the new country. One of the main reasons for the Constitutional Convention was to remedy that problem. The framers' solution was the commerce clause, which was intended to make a free-trade zone out of the United States....

At first, the clause was closely interpreted as referring to interference by the states with the flow of commerce. In 1824, Chief Justice John Marshall's Court, in the first big case involving the commerce clause, Gibbons v. Ogden, struck down a New York law creating a steamship monopoly for traffic between New York and New Jersey. Marshall laid down the principle that for the national government to have jurisdiction, the issue must involve interstate commerce; i.e., it must involve the trafficking of goods (not manufacture) between two or more states....

After President Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court to dilute the influence of the uncooperative "nine old men," a majority of the justices took to the most expansive definition of the commerce clause like a drunk to drink. The Court blessed the secretary of agriculture's power to set minimum prices for milk sold intrastate . "The marketing of intrastate milk," wrote the Court in the 1942 Wrightwood Dairy case, "which competes with that shipped interstate would tend seriously to break down price regulation of the latter." Yes, so? What was the Court's point? Only that nothing — especially not liberty — should be permitted to get in the way of the national government's power to regulate the economy.

... Enter Roscoe Filburn, an Ohio dairy and poultry farmer, who raised a small quantity of winter wheat — some to sell, some to feed his livestock, and some to consume. In 1940, under authority of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the central government told Mr. Filburn that for the next year he would be limited to planting 11 acres of wheat and harvesting 20 bushels per acre. He harvested 12 acres over his allotment for consumption on his own property. When the government fined him, Mr. Filburn refused to pay.

Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it — and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the government's objective. The Supreme Court bought it.

The Court's opinion must be quoted to be believed:


[The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.


As Epstein commented, "Could anyone say with a straight face that the consumption of home-grown wheat is 'commerce among the several states?'" For good measure, the Court justified the obvious sacrifice of Mr. Filburn's freedom and interests to the unnamed farmers being protected:


It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self-interest of the regulated and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others.


[So much for the freedom of the individual.]

After Wickard , everything is mere detail.... Under this maximum commerce power, the government has been free to regulate nearly everything... The Court has held that if Congress sees a connection to interstate commerce, it is not its role to second guess....
www.fff.org...



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join