Please show me the case where they've legislated from the bench.

I would really like to see the case that you feel they ruled on and overturned their decisions by majority.

The cases are brought to them and they decide what will be heard in their docket vs the constant ram down of frivolous litigation that clogs our lower courts.

I'm no lawyer, but I did stay at a couple of Holiday Inns and would like your input Robert.

Off the top of my head, I am pretty certain that Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessey v. Ferguson and "seperate but equal". IIRC, it was unanimous, but I am not entirely certain...

Not really an overturn.

More like righting a wrong held belief.

The "seperate but equal" didn't hold credence and shouldn't have either.

Segregation was and is wrong. Often times legislation is needed and that would alter the high courts decision in the matter.

States do have rights.

In the case you mentioned it was a clause added to the 14th Amendment and later cases heard that brought us to the point of the Brown decision.

While they like to link the 2 they shouldn't.

If anything it shows that as a nation we have progressed.

I can't find that kind of real human progression in other nations.

Administration asks judge to tell the states that healthcare law isn't optional
By Jason Millman - 02/17/11 06:36 PM ET
The Obama administration is asking a federal judge who struck down the healthcare reform law to clarify that states must still implement the overhaul as the appeals process plays out.

Some states are saying the Jan. 31 ruling relieves them from implementing the sweeping reform law because the federal judge in Florida found it to be unconstitutional.

The Obama administration, in a Thursday evening filing in a Northern Florida federal court, is asking the court to clarify that the 26 states who successfully challenged the law are still required to comply with it.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the law's requirement for individuals to purchase insurance is unconstitutional, and therefore, the rest of the law is unconstitutional because the provision is too central to making the law function. The administration points out that the so-called individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014, while other parts of the law have already gone into effect.

"[A] contrary understanding would threaten serious harm to many Americans currently benefiting from provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are already in effect and would significantly interfere with defendants’ statutory duty to implement the Act as Congress directed," the Justice Department wrote in its court filing.

In addition to the Florida ruling, another federal judge in Virginia ruled the law's individual mandate unconstitutional. However, two other federal judges upheld the mandate, while more than a dozen courts have thrown out challenges on procedural grounds.

In the aftermath of the Florida ruling, a number of states have questioned whether they must implement the law. Florida returned several grants, and Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike said there is confusion regarding future implementation.

Several lawmakers, including Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), have called on the administration to ask the Supreme Court to fast-track the appeals. However, the administration seems content to allow the normal appeals process to play out.

Even states who are challenging the reform law in court are moving forward with implementation. On Wednesday, Wisconsin accepted a $38 million grant to establish technology infrastructure to support new health insurance exchanges created by the reform law.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/144955-administration-wants-court-to-back-implementation-of-healthcare-law 

Supreme Court will hear health care case this term

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says it will hear arguments over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, setting up an election-year showdown over the White House's main domestic policy achievement.

The justices on Monday revealed they would take the case. That means arguments could come in March, allowing plenty of time for a decision in late June, just over four months before Election Day.

The health care case could be the high court's most significant and political undertaking since the 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore nearly 11 years ago. That ruling effectively sealed George W. Bush's 2000 presidential election victory.

Republicans have called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional since before Obama signed it into law in March 2010. But federal appeals courts have been split on their assessment.



Let's hope that Kagen recuses herself.

A major supporter of the president’s health care reform law will be relinquishing his post as head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid to his number two in command after Republicans successfully prevented his confirmation to the post.

Harvard professor Donald Berwick — who once explained that “excellent health care is, by definition, redistribution” — will step down Dec. 2 officials confirmed to the Associated Press on Wednesday.

The White House announced that they have nominated Berwick’s principal deputy administrator, Marilyn Tavenner, to take over the position.

Earlier this year, 42 Republican senators promised to block Berwick’s confirmation. Their success in preventing Berwick’s appointment represents another blow to the president’s health care law —Berwick was an important actor in introducing its reforms.

Obama nominated Berwick to the post but before Democrats scheduled a hearing, the president bypassed the Senate and appointed him to the post during recess last July, which allowed him to serve through the end of the year.

The soon-to-be former Medicare head was a favorite target for Republicans, who pointed to past quotes they say demonstrated his embrace of socialized medicine and rationing as a sure reason to oppose him.

“Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must — must —redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate,” Berwick said, for example, in 2008 during a speech in the United Kingdom.

Berwick has denied that he is an advocate for government rationing of health care.

Tavenner will serve as interim head until her confirmation next year.












Oh snap.

snap?

"Starting next January, I will make the prompt submission of my presidential nominees a top priority. And I will ask the Senate to act on each nominee I submit within 60 days. I would ask Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to follow this standard regardless of who may be elected next November. Public service is an honorable calling, and there are many now serving in Washington who view it just that way. But their voices are easily drowned out in the din of battle. Instead, the agenda is determined - the tone set - by the loud, the aggressive, the contentious.This should not be the spirit of Washington. This is no way to encourage good people to serve, and no way to build a legacy of accomplishment." GWBush

---

"It is the worst ever," said Paul Light, a presidential nominations expert at New York University.

He said dragging out confirmations is nothing new, and both Democrats and Republicans have done it. But he said the current delays are unprecedented, and word has spread that the nomination ordeal is not worth it.

"What I hear is that two, three, four people are refusing invitations to serve before they get to one who'll go through this process," Light added. "It has just become a very ugly process, very dispiriting."

Take, for example, a nominee the Senate finally confirmed Tuesday. Half of the Republicans and all of the Democrats voted to confirm Lael Brainard as the Treasury Department's undersecretary for international affairs — 13 months after she was nominated.

Republicans raised questions about tax deductions she had taken. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) urged colleagues not to confirm her.

"This is not just a matter of taxes — it is a matter of trust," Bunning said.

Unlike most of the current holds, Bunning's was public.

As Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) pointed out, most senators won't acknowledge having put holds on nominees.

"You want to know why this, the country, doesn't trust us," McCaskill asked. "It's because of this kind of nonsense, this kind of secret hold shenanigans."

McCaskill said 80 or so nominees remain stalled by secret holds, and she's trying to reveal the holds' authors by demanding votes on those nominees.

No. 2 Senate Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona objected to McCaskill's request for votes. He did so on behalf of colleagues whose names he did not reveal.

"I am not defending a lot of holds," Kyl said.

When asked if he thought holds had gotten excessive, Kyle answered, "They might well be; I don't know."

The irony, said nominations expert Light, is that Obama has had to go around the Senate to fill out his team.

"There are a lot of these jobs that are now filled by acting officials or non-Senate confirmed presidential appointees, and the Senate should be outraged by it," Light said. "Yet, they dither with these holds that result in very significant problems with governing."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126154844