[Red Steel]

And here's where I get lost, again. The judge grants the plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment. Which ones? All of them? It references a document that I haven't read, so maybe that's what expands it to all the states. But, I keep circling back to "how"? If competing district judges can just keep issuing contrary opinions for multiple states, which one do we believe? Why do we need a Supreme Court?

Every federal district judge in the country could give an opinion upholding OBotcare, a federal law, as constitutional except for one who found OBotcare unconstitutional. The unconstitutional finding would be the binding opinion, the law of the land, that would invalidate the federal law.

The opinion stands until the federal government formally appeals the holding where an appellate court takes the appeal and then rules contrary to the unconstitutional opinion against OBotcare.

This is why the socialists love to go judge shopping. Instead this time, they are the turkeys on the defense trying to hold the line.

[justlurking]

Every federal district judge in the country could give an opinion upholding OBotcare, a federal law, as constitutional except for one who found OBotcare unconstitutional. The unconstitutional finding would be the binding opinion, the law of the land, that would invalidate the federal law.

I'm sorry, but in order to convince me of this, you're going to have to provide a citation -- or at least an example where it happened.