Re: [Phys-l] frizzi

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@hep.anl.gov>]

Hi all-
	I respond to Hugh's
 I'm not sure I understand this. Does a state have to be a party to a
> case for the ruling to become a requirement? What if, say, a case
> brought in Wisconsin (assuming it is a member of the seventh
> district) about the death penalty (or abortion, or birth control, or
> the health insurance mandate, or any of a myriad of politically
> charged cases that are still under contest around the country)

	Basically, a court only has jurisdiction (power) to settle a 
dispute between the parties who have brought their dispute to the court.
When a court relies on its own precedent, it is simply saying,"We're going 
to be consistent and rule the sane way on the same set of facts.  We want 
every court that we review to do the same."  The Seventh Circuit, a 
federal court, does not review Illinois state court decisions.  Thus, in a 
case that cannot be reviewed in a federal court of appeals, there is no 
need for a state court to follow federal court decisions.  The basic thing 
to remember is that courts do not make law; they only settle disputes.

"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
		General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
		just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley




On Sat, 20 Aug 2011, Hugh Haskell wrote:

> At 12:22 AM -0500 8/20/11, Jack Uretsky wrote:
> > Not correct.  Thre are areas of law where the Illinois Supreme Court has
> > explicitly refused to follow precedent set by the Federal Seventh Circuit
> > (which includes Illinois) Court of appeals, where Illinois was not a party
> > to the federal decision.  That's the meaning of federalism!
>
> I'm not sure I understand this. Does a state have to be a party to a
> case for the ruling to become a requirement? What if, say, a case
> brought in Wisconsin (assuming it is a member of the seventh
> district) about the death penalty (or abortion, or birth control, or
> the health insurance mandate, or any of a myriad of politically
> charged cases that are still under contest around the country)
> reaches the seventh circuit court on appeal, and further, to make it
> unambiguous, assume that Illinois does not enter the case in any
> fashion, even as an amicus. If the court decision is opposed to the
> death penalty, does not that precedent apply to Illinois? I know that
> the precedent doesn't apply outside the Seventh District (in fact, it
> is my understanding that the surest way to get your case to the
> SCOTUS is for there to be two similar cases with contradictory
> results in two different districts--especially if they are
> high-profile cases).
>
> What if it goes on to the SCOTUS, and they uphold the seventh
> circuit, does it not then apply to Illinois?
>
> Can you give an example of the type of case that the SCOI has refused
> to follow a precedent set by the Seventh Circuit?
>
> I guess I can imagine some type of cases that might not apply outside
> the relevant jurisdiction of the original case--for example, if the
> decision came down on a particular provision of a states law or
> constitution that did not directly affect other states in the
> district, but wouldn't it apply if, for example it involved an issue
> of federal law, as interpreted by the states and the district court?
>
> This is interesting because it is the first time I have ever heard
> this mentioned, and I have several friends and relatives who are
> lawyers and it has never come up in any of our conversations about
> the law.
>
> Hugh
> --
>
> Hugh Haskell
> mailto:hugh@ieer.org
> mailto:haskellh@verizon.net
>
> It isn't easy being green.
>
> 		--Kermit Lagrenouille
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l