HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What specifically does it...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:37 PM

 

What specifically does it mean if the SCOTUS send it back to congress?

Senate and House?
60 votes or 51?

What if they added ALL states and made it ONE standard for all (in that the federal government would then decide ALL changes nationwide?)

Could this play out BETTER than it was before? (possibly a 10 step ahead?)

And what happens during the long time it will take to reinterpret in Congress?

I assume it would stay on the books til then

And how in the world would THIS congress decide anything?

5 replies, 440 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply What specifically does it mean if the SCOTUS send it back to congress? (Original post)
graham4anything Feb 2013 OP
elleng Feb 2013 #1
ashling Feb 2013 #2
Skip Intro Feb 2013 #3
graham4anything Feb 2013 #4
ashling Feb 2013 #5

Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:43 PM

1. With THIS Congress, could mean bad things for many.

With a good Congress, could be very good, all over.
Really depends on how decision is constructed.

There is a provision, in the Act, today, that a similar remedy can be imposed ANYWHERE in the country, if a Federal court finds it necessary. That provision is not in jeopardy due to today's argument, in the 'instant,' so we're really not in such bad shape as many may think we are.

In the interim? Not sure; have to do some homework. Depends on what court 'below' ruled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:55 PM

2. They can't "send it back" to the Congress

like they would send a case back to a lower court with instructions. They can uphold the law. The can find that it is unconstitutional - in which case it would no longer be in effect. They can find a part of the law to be unconstitutional - in which case that part of the law would be no longer in effect. But they have no authority to tell the Congress to do it over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:58 PM

3. As it should be. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:59 PM

4. That is not what I am reading and also heard on NYC news station WCBS in the car

 

It specifically said they can ask congress to update it to make it 2013 appropriate and that
the 2006 reaffirming by Congress was out of date.

In essence asking Congress to rewrite the law in 2013 time.(whatever that means).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 07:22 PM

5. Well, I agree with one part of that:

just this part:
"Whatever that means."
LOL

They can suggest, but they can't make their decision contingent upon whatever Congress does or does not do. The case is before them on the facts before them. Their decision will be made, theoretically, on the basis of this set of facts and law (who knows what Fat Tony will decide on or what cloud Clarence Thomas is on - a rain cloud)


At any rate, I seriously doubt that this Congress is going to expand any power given to the DOJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread