[justlurking]

But in my view, our system of jurisprudence has become complicated beyond all redemption, when ordinary citizens can't have confidence in such a clear and unambiguous ruling by a federal judge. In other words, "unconstitutional" doesn't necessarily mean "unconstitutional" in our modern world.

The issue isn't what the judge meant. The issue is the limit of this judge's authority.

There are 94 federal judicial districts. With a few exceptions, they are appointed for life by the current administration. As the administration changes back and forth, you get various ideologies. If a single district judge could affect the entire country, then another district judge could just overrule him.

Remember, we've already had two district judges rule for ObamaCare, and another rule against a portion of ObamaCare. Can you imagine the chaos if the law changed nationwide every time a new ruling was published?

That's the reason for our hierarchical system. It's designed to prevent that kind of chaos.

[Windflier]

...we've already had two district judges rule for ObamaCare, and another rule against a portion of ObamaCare. Can you imagine the chaos if the law changed nationwide every time a new ruling was published?

That's the reason for our hierarchical system. It's designed to prevent that kind of chaos.

Thanks for the explanation, JL. I suppose my view of things is just uncomplicated and straightforward. Obamacare was unconstitutional when it was passed, so of course I want to see it thrown out as soon as possible.

I just bristle against the reality that our legal system is so complicated that it baffles ordinary people, and that things which are clearly in violation of our Constitution require such an incredible assault to undo.

/gripe