Jump to content

Bill Schuette Ignored Existing Federal Case Law


peanutbutter

Recommended Posts

I disagree .. it IS case law.

 

IT IS EXISTING FEDERAL CASE LAW.

 

It doesn't make any difference how many times you say it isn't.

 

edit As a case that went to a federal COA, it is a precedent. You are correct, not a binding precedent.

 

Since it is not binding, it is not required for Bill to respect when he is setting on a federal bench.

 

Until he is ruling on federal law, he is limited to ruling on Michigan law.

 

His "federal" claim is a pretext only.

The AG doesn't "rule' on law, he can have an opinion but it is by no means a ruling.

Secondly, his opinion is not generally binding on the people of the state it is only binding on state departments.

Thirdly, as Mich AG it is his job to represent a state employee, such as a state cop, if they are charged with a crime or contempt or anything like that that came out of the course of their employee. Therefore it is his job to inform state employees what he thinks the risks are in regard to returning med mj to people. Does that mean I agree with him on his opinions? No. All I am doing is laying out the facts and the fact is it is his job to advise state employees as he did. Whether you agree is a different matter altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and the definition of caselaw is NOT law that applies to every man, woman, child, and goat in the kingdom. It doesn't matter what name you want to give it the fact is it is NOT controlling in our circuit. Not in the least.

 

Opinions out the Wisconsin sup ct are persuasive precedent in Michigan just like 9th circuit cases are. But does that mean Michigan must follow Wisconsin's reasoning or even rule similarly as the Wisonsin court did on a case with the same issue here in Michigan? No.

 

So, you can call it caselaw but labeling it as such doesn't change the fact that it isn't binding here in Michigan. Apparently you think that the term caselaw makes it binding here. It doesn't. Caselaw means law that comes out of court cases as opposed to laws made by a legislature. So, yes, it's caselaw, but what's your point? It's like you taking your med mj card with you down to texas and then arguing to a cop that "it IS a med mj license so don't arrest me darn it!" Yes, it is a license but it's worthless in Texas!

 

The single issue of return of medicine is what has made it to that level of federal court.

 

Other issues in that ruling have been debated in other locations and probably the SC.

 

Issues such as:

There is no requirement for local law enforcement to enforce federal law.

There is no ability for local law enforcement to enforce federal law.

There is no requirement for state laws to be an exact echo of federal law.

Federal law can not require the passage of state law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chuckle .. are you a Michigan lawyer or a federal lawyer?

 

I've said several times now. You are CORRECT. It is not BINDING precedent.

 

It is a precedent and it is case law.

 

It is simply the highest level the issue has been taken, so far, and the results of that.

You have also said several times things such as this:

"Perhaps Bill intends to take it all the way to the supreme court. That is what would be required to overcome the weight of existing case law."

 

And you are simply wrong. The AG doesn't need to take a case of this nature to the US Sup Ct to overcome the "weight" of caselaw out of the 9th circuit because such a case carries no weight here in the 6th circuit. Really, I don't think you get it and I think I have thoroughly explained it so I'm going to leave it alone now. At some point it becomes a waste of time to have to keep explaining something over and over. You're using circular reasoning throughout this thread and it's clear to me that I cannot make you understand so I give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AG doesn't "rule' on law, he can have an opinion but it is by no means a ruling.

Secondly, his opinion is not generally binding on the people of the state it is only binding on state departments.

Thirdly, as Mich AG it is his job to represent a state employee, such as a state cop, if they are charged with a crime or contempt or anything like that that came out of the course of their employee. Therefore it is his job to inform state employees what he thinks the risks are in regard to returning med mj to people. Does that mean I agree with him on his opinions? No. All I am doing is laying out the facts and the fact is it is his job to advise state employees as he did. Whether you agree is a different matter altogether.

 

Yeah .. rule ..

 

I guess you missed the point I was trying to make.

 

BILL SCHUETTE AIN'T A FEDERAL JUDGE. As such he should stop trying to enforce federal law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have also said several times things such as this:

"Perhaps Bill intends to take it all the way to the supreme court. That is what would be required to overcome the weight of existing case law."

 

And you are simply wrong. The AG doesn't need to take a case of this nature to the US Sup Ct to overcome the "weight" of caselaw out of the 9th circuit because such a case carries no weight here in the 6th circuit. Really, I don't think you get it and I think I have thoroughly explained it so I'm going to leave it alone now. At some point it becomes a waste of time to have to keep explaining something over and over. You're using circular reasoning throughout this thread and it's clear to me that I cannot make you understand so I give up.

 

Yep .. my view was national re weight.

 

And you are correct that a ruling from our circuit would be binding on us even with the existing ruling to the contrary in another area.

 

That would establish a direct conflict that would need to be resolved at the SC level. And that could take a very long time. Until that time, these two would establish a balance for the rest of the country. That is what I was talking about weight.

 

I stand corrected about weight as it relates to this circuit.

 

Those are a far cry from a flat statement like "federal law requires." So far, federal case law disagrees with Bill Schuette.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep .. my view was national re weight.

 

And you are correct that a ruling from our circuit would be binding on us even with the existing ruling to the contrary in another area.

 

That would establish a direct conflict that would need to be resolved at the SC level. And that could take a very long time. Until that time, these two would establish a balance for the rest of the country.

 

Those are a far cry from a flat statement like "federal law requires." So far federal case law disagrees with Bill Schuette.

Oh I'm correct? Well I'm glad you're here to inform me of that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about these?

 

Issues such as:

There is no requirement for local law enforcement to enforce federal law.

There is no ability for local law enforcement to enforce federal law.

There is no requirement for state laws to be an exact echo of federal law.

Federal law can not require the passage of state law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

recap ..

 

We have a state AG issuing an opinion about federal law.

We have a federal judge that has issued a federal ruling about that federal issue.

 

The Ag opinion has some binding impact. On the activity of law enforcement, until a judge rules against his opinion.

 

There are several federal rulings that ARE binding nationwide.

 

Many of which impact the issue of the return of the medicine.

 

Very clear. The SC has determined that these state medical marijuana laws can exist at the same time as federal law. That is binding.

 

The problem here is that Bill Schuette seems to be attempting to enforce a ruling in a case that has never taken place and has probably not even been filed. All federal and not state. Based on this non existent federal case, he seems to have informed law enforcement that it is open season on armed robbery of patients by law enforcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Freep writer has it correct. I will email him and thank him for writing it.

 

Brian Dickerson: Schuette Wages War Against the People's Law.

 

Freep Article

 

Sure the AGs opinion isn't law but they say it does carry the weight of law and if it's even .001% against the will of the voters that's plain wrong.

 

Waging his personal war against a People's Law is the same as waging war against the People. He does not represent the People but only his Big Pharm and corporate buddies. He needs to resign for abuse of authority.

 

 

 

 

 

Peace. :rock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand and remember correctly from my law classes though, this California case could be brought up if the same situation arises in MI, at which point the attorney for a Michigan MJ patient could submit this as case law and get a similar ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand and remember correctly from my law classes though, this California case could be brought up if the same situation arises in MI, at which point the attorney for a Michigan MJ patient could submit this as case law and get a similar ruling.

 

It is a clear example of a case in federal court.

 

That is how a federal judge interpreted federal law.

 

Our AG is NOT a federal judge. He issued an opinion as a state officer. The judge RULED on federal law as a federal judge.

 

Which carries more weight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a clear example of a case in federal court.

 

That is how a federal judge interpreted federal law.

 

Our AG is NOT a federal judge. He issued an opinion as a state officer. The judge RULED on federal law as a federal judge.

 

Which carries more weight?

 

Do we accept our state officers opinion to be more accurate than the ruling by a federal judge?

 

How can our state officer over rule a federal court about federal law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schuette says Obamacare is not valid in Michigan because State Law trumps Federal Law.

 

Schuette says The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act is not valid because Federal Law trumps State Law.

 

His opinions are invalid because reason trumps inconsistency. That's what the judges will say when they try out his opinions in court.

 

Doublethink, a word coined by George Orwell in the novel 1984, describes the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. - Wikipedia

 

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth." -- George Orwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is George Orwell's nightmare world envisioned in his novel "1984". Another situation never thought I would come to see in my lifetime. I figured that Orwell's book would educate people to the possibilities that could come about if we didn't pay attention to what we are doing, and there fore the situation would never come to pass. Unfortunately, people have not paid attention and we are now in "the situation".

 

I really don't like it and find it hard to understand why a public servant at the level of Attorney General, Governor, or President can get away with this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...