Filing challenges high court ruling: Federal Judge blocks Nevada Assembly's tax-increase vote

Las Vegas Review-Journal ^ | July 14, 03 | Las Vegas Review-Journal

[churchillbuff]

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

U.S. District Judge Philip Pro temporarily restrained the action by which the Nevada Assembly passed a tax bill with less than a two-thirds vote. He ordered an en banc hearing with all district judges for 9 a.m. Wednesday in Reno and Las Vegas.

The Assembly voted 26-16 Sunday for a bill that would increase taxes by a record $788 million over the next two years.

Today, Republican lawmakers, citizens and business groups -- upset with Thursday's decision by the state Supreme Court rejecting the two-thirds vote requirement to pass taxes -- filed an action in U.S. District Court seeking to block the court's ruling.

Assembly Minority Leader Lynn Hettrick, R-Gardnerville, said the federal action is necessary because the 6-1 Supreme Court ruling allowing only a simple majority to raise taxes is unconstitutional.

"We don't believe the court's decision that we can ignore the constitution is legal," he said.

[Principled]

States requiring a supermajority to raise taxes

[Mr. Lucky]

A federal court's jurisdiction must be based upon federal law. (excepting in a "diversity" case which doesn't apply here). Even aside from the (apparent) lack of a federal question, there isn't any basis I'm aware of for a court to enjoin a legislative body from even considering an issue.

[Dont Mention the War]

The next real threat to our system comes when Hillary wins in 2004 and appoints a bunch of Souters, Briers, andsoforths to the US Court. All of our rights will then disappear. What then?

I don't know. I don't live on Earth B.

[HOYA97]

I think one point that is being missed here is that the Democrats in California, including Davis, are most probably watching this court case with great interest to see if they can apply the law likewise.

Thought?

[Political Junkie Too]

It's amazing that these people never consider reducing spending in other areas. If education is of such importance that it must be funded, doing away with the constitutional threshold for taxes isn't the only answer -- cutting something else is always an option.

Naaaaahhhhh...

-PJ

[TheAngryClam]

That's a no-go, because of a separation of powers conflict, as well as it being a political question. See this article for a view on why that's unfortunate, but esstially correct.

Using the "Republican form of government" approach is like a lineman trying to kick a field goal from the other team's endzone, in the rain.

[Redcloak]

I hope that the weasels in Sacramento are watching this.

[Principled]

thanks...so plaintiffs are state legislators with standing?

[TheAngryClam]

See post 40. That answers that.

[Mr. Lucky]

Cool. Too, one could argue that the requirement in the US Constitution that all states have a republican form of government was probably violated when the Nevada Supreme Court took it upon itself to supercede the state constitution.

[TheAngryClam]

It looks that way.

There's also other groups tacked on with what looks like supplemental jurisdiction.

[Dont Mention the War]

A federal court's jurisdiction must be based upon federal law. (excepting in a "diversity" case which doesn't apply here). Even aside from the (apparent) lack of a federal question, there isn't any basis I'm aware of for a court to enjoin a legislative body from even considering an issue.

I don't think anybody's saying the Nevada Legislature can't meet and hash out whatever it wants. What we're saying is that if they're meeting because of a blatantly unconstitutional COMMAND from the state Supreme Court to go into session and create and pass a specific bill, which the state Supreme Court has no right to order and which tramples on the state's own constitution and the most fundamental rights of its citizens, then any such "bill" passed by the legislature will be null and void, precisely because it will be in violation of the state's constitution and was created only due to illegal coercion.

[TheAngryClam]

As I said in #46, using the "Republican form of government" approach is like a lineman trying to kick a field goal from the other team's endzone, in the rain.

[OldFriend]

Good news.

[Dont Mention the War]

I think one point that is being missed here is that the Democrats in California, including Davis, are most probably watching this court case with great interest to see if they can apply the law likewise. Thought?

If it turns out they can (highly doubtful), and they do (almost certain if it does turn out they can), then every single one of them will end up recalled, not just Davis.

[Mr. Lucky]

Frankly, I think the Article IV argument is a good one, but shouldn't the injunction have been issued against the State Supreme Court? They are the ones who have usurped the republican form of government.

[TheAngryClam]

There's two suits- one against the state supreme court for issuing the ruling, and one against the legislature to prevent them from acting upon it.

The injunction is to keep the legislature from doing anything about the state supreme court ruling.

What good would an injunction do for an already issued decision? The only worthwhile injunction is on enforcing it, which is what we have here.

[Ken H]

That's a no-go, because of a separation of powers conflict, as well as it being a political question.

The question is whether a State SC can ignore the State's Constitution and order a Legislature to raise revenues.

A scofflaw State Court is very much the business of the USSC.

See this article for a view on why that's unfortunate, but esstially correct.

That's a long complicated article. Could you briefly summarize the reason why the matter is not the business of the Federal Courts?

[Dont Mention the War]

Frankly, I think the Article IV argument is a good one, but shouldn't the injunction have been issued against the State Supreme Court? They are the ones who have usurped the republican form of government.

Well, like I've said, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing there's some legal technicality as to why the injunction was issued as it was. Perhaps they're going on the argument that what the SCONEV ordered is irrelevant since it's illegal, and the real immediate problem is that the Legislature is attempting to cause horrific damage to the public by following an unconstitutional order.

[Dont Mention the War]

Should I even be using the term SCONEV? There's plenty of Google citations for SCOFLA, but zero for SCONEV.