Skip to main content

View Diary: 11th Circuit Rebukes Delay, Frist, Bush (59 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  On behalf of the non-legal types (none)
    What was Plaut?  It sounds like a seafood dish.  Also, could one or more of you guys put out there, in plain english, what this all means?  I get the impression from what you're all saying that there's more to this ruling than simply denying the Schindler's motion, but I don't understand it.
    What happens next?

    "Michael Savage is the concience (sic) of the conservative movement"--Free Republic Poster

    by soonergrunt on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 02:53:07 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Plaut (none)
      Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm is a 1995 Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a statute that required the courts to re-open judgments that had previously become final violated the principle of the separation of powers.  The key paragraph, IMO:

      When retroactive legislation requires its own application in a case already finally adjudicated, it does no more and no less than "reverse a determination once made, in a particular case." The Federalist No. 81, p. 545 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). Our decisions stemming from Hayburn's Case - although their precise holdings are not strictly applicable here, see supra, at 6-7 - have uniformly provided fair warning that such an act exceeds the powers of Congress.

      The 11th Circuit's decision effectively ends all legal discussion in the Schiavo case.  What we're discussing here is whether the law that Congress passed overnight allowing a new round of federal lawsuits was unconstitutional (and the implications that Judge Birch's concurrence, which argues that the law is unconstitutional) could have in the future if Congress ever becomes this frisky again.

      The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

      by Categorically Imperative on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 03:03:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the help. So, if I understand you (none)
        correctly, the full court:
        a)   refused to hear their claim, after extending the time limit for them to file their claim for the full court to be heard.
        b)   did NOT, as a court declare the midnight-passed federal law, 109-3, unconstitutional, but--
        One of the judges, Birch, stated that it was unconstitutional on the grounds that it interferes with separation of powers between the branches and it essentially causes a federal court to invalidate a state court ruling, even though the federal court doesn't have the jurisdiction to do so.
        Birch, then goes on, at some point in his concurring judgement, to bitchslap the Congress and the Executive for their unconstitutional act that attempts to force the 11th circuit to be the dreaded 'activist judges.

        Anyway, that's what I gather.  When you say that The 11th Circuit's decision effectively ends all legal discussion in the Schiavo case you are saying that the 11th circuit has said that they have no right to hear the case in the first place?  And since the Supreme Court has already turned these people away, that the case reverts back to Florida, where it is settled law?

        Again, thanks for the help.

        "Michael Savage is the concience (sic) of the conservative movement"--Free Republic Poster

        by soonergrunt on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 04:16:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  it's not over (none)
          The Schiavos could petition for cert before the Supreme Court again on this amended petition for TRO, and will be denied again.
        •  You're right, (none)
          except for the last part.  The Schindlers can go back to the Supreme Court and ask the Justices (once again) to hear the case.  SCOTUS will, I am 100% sure, refuse to hear the case.  At which point, the legal case is finished, and all that's left is for Terri to pass on as peacefully as possible, or some type of shenanigans by Jeb in Florida.

          The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

          by Categorically Imperative on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 04:29:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site