Re: [Phys-l] frizzi

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

I'm not sure of what you find inconsistent, so let's analyze your 
hypothetical: In an Illinois case the 7th circuit strikes down an Illinois 
law maing smoking of beet roots illegal.  Can Wisconsin (which is in the 
7th circuit) pass a law similar to the one struck down in Illinois?  Yes, 
of course it can, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court could uphold the law if 
it were challenged in state court.  But, as a practical matter, the 
challenge to the law would be made in a Wisconsin federal district court, 
which would be obliged to follow 7th circuit law.
				Regards,
					Jack
"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 8:48 PM -0500 8/20/11, Jack Uretsky wrote:
> >  	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.
> OK, but this seems different from what you said originally, "States
> are not obliged to follow, or agree with, federal court decisions in
> matters that do not involve the particular states as parties."
>
> Doesn't it depend on the nature of the issue? I understand that court
> decisions are not binding on courts of equal or higher stature, and
> if an issue is irrelevant to one area of a court's jurisdiction, then
> a precedent would also be irrelevant. If, for example, the seventh
> circuit were to invalidate an Illinois constitutional amendment
> banning gay marriage (as was done by the ninth circuit a couple of
> years ago), wouldn't that mean that if Wisconsin were to pass a
> similar amendment to it's constitution, they could expect the seventh
> circuit Court to knock it down on the same grounds? Obviously, if no
> one appeals theWisconsin law, then the court is powerless to do
> anything about it, but if theWisconsin state supreme court approved
> the amendment for Wisconsin, it seems likely that such a decision
> would be appealed, and one could expect the seventh circuit to
> invalidate it as they did with the similar Illinois amendment.
>
> Is what you are saying that those not party to a decision are not
> bound by any precedents asserted by the decision--unless the new case
> comes up for review and an appropriate court follows the previous
> precedent and rules the same as it did in the first case.
>
> I'm not arguing with your statement. I'm only trying to understand
> the nature of your statement so that I won't say something stupid
> when I talk about this with my lawyer friends. A concrete example (I
> have no objection to hypothetical cases) would really help me to
> understand this.
>
> 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