Supreme Court Says No

Supreme Court Says No

Posted in the Arnold Forum

Doris Borgelt

Columbus, OH

#1 Feb 25, 2014
to both Kansas City and Florissant's request for hearing before them. This means those decisions made in the Eastern District Appeals Court stand and are now LAW in Eastern District Courts....I believe Arnold is located in the Eastern District, yes?
DSH

Saint Louis, MO

#2 Feb 25, 2014
The Supreme Court does not make law. They can set precedent, make decisions concerning law, and strike down laws, but they cannot create law. Laws are strictly created in the Legislative branch of the government. The ruling against Kansas City and Florissant concerns only Kansas City and Florissant. Unless Arnold was specifically mentioned, then the decision does not directly affect them, as they are a separate case to be heard at a separate time.
Matt Hay

United States

#3 Feb 25, 2014
http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/cfc8c4...

And with this, any red light camera ordinance in both the Eastern and Western Districts which does not identify the driver and assess points has been made invalid. Today the Supreme Court denied writs for transfer from Kansas City, Florissant, and the City of Creve Coeur. This effectively finalizes the prohibition of such ordinances, unless and until the Supreme Court takes up either the Ellisville or Arnold transfers AND decides differently. Until then, it is the law of the land.:-)
ArnoldCC

United States

#4 Feb 25, 2014
This means that the ATS contract is permanently suspended as per the last council meeting.
Matt Hay

United States

#5 Feb 25, 2014
DSH wrote:
The Supreme Court does not make law. They can set precedent, make decisions concerning law, and strike down laws, but they cannot create law. Laws are strictly created in the Legislative branch of the government. The ruling against Kansas City and Florissant concerns only Kansas City and Florissant. Unless Arnold was specifically mentioned, then the decision does not directly affect them, as they are a separate case to be heard at a separate time.
Not correct. Finalized State Appellate opinions are binding on the entire judicial district (Mo is comprised of 3 Eastern, Western, and Southern). Kansas City is a WD case, and Creve Coeur and Florissant are both ED cases. That means it is now precedent and binding on all courts of those districts. Your statement is correct if you are referring to Circuit Court Opinions, but out of judicial economy, the Appellate opinions are binding on an entire district (otherwise, just think about it, you would have the Appellate Court rehearing the same argument on the same subject ad infinitum from each circuit in the district.)

That said, as a result, any ordinance which does not comply with the Appellate Opinions in those 3 cases is invalid and void under Missouri law. Those 3 cases have exhausted all avenues of appeal.
Matt Hay

United States

#6 Feb 25, 2014
ArnoldCC wrote:
This means that the ATS contract is permanently suspended as per the last council meeting.
It means unless and until the Supreme Court takes up either Ellisville or Arnold AND determine otherwise, all such ordinances are void in both the Eastern and Western Districts as those 3 cases have exhausted all appeals and are judicial precedent. Contracts which require the completion of an illegal act are void under the law, so yes, in a way you are correct, though the severability clause in the contract itself voids it, rather than "suspends" it.
DSH

Saint Louis, MO

#7 Feb 25, 2014
Matt, I'm not correct "in a way". Division of powers is division of powers. The Supreme Court, be it at a State or Federal level, cannot "create" laws. They can uphold laws, or overturn them, or make rulings that set precedent on previous laws, but they CANNOT CREATE new laws.
Doris Borgelt

Columbus, OH

#8 Feb 25, 2014
DSH wrote:
Matt, I'm not correct "in a way". Division of powers is division of powers. The Supreme Court, be it at a State or Federal level, cannot "create" laws. They can uphold laws, or overturn them, or make rulings that set precedent on previous laws, but they CANNOT CREATE new laws.
Give it a rest. You try to pull that semantics crap frequently. You said they do not make LAW, singular. So "in a way" you are correct, but what does that have to do with this decision? NOTHING! You are merely making a poor attempt at muddying the waters, which is just the way you seem to like to try to do things. The fact is, the ordinances as written in the City of Arnold, Creve Couer, Florissant, Ellisville and Kansas City conflict with state law and are null and void for now. If the Supreme Court should decide at a later date to hear the Arnold and/or Ellisville cases, that may change, but that has no bearing on right here and now and the ruling stands in the Eastern, Western, and Southern Districts which constitute the whole State of Missouri..
ArnoldCC

Arnold, MO

#9 Feb 25, 2014
Who would ever elect a person that acts and berates people like that? DSH, you are correct and don't let the person trying to run for council treat you like that. Stand up to them.
Matt Hay

Fenton, MO

#10 Feb 25, 2014
DSH wrote:
Matt, I'm not correct "in a way". Division of powers is division of powers. The Supreme Court, be it at a State or Federal level, cannot "create" laws. They can uphold laws, or overturn them, or make rulings that set precedent on previous laws, but they CANNOT CREATE new laws.
What are you talking about? Division of Powers? No one is saying any law was created, rather ordinances from Missouri municipalities, or rather principles from those ordinances were evaluated against existing statutes and caselaw and it was determined that the idea of not issuing points, and not identifying the driver are incompatible with state statute. Because the Appellate Courts are courts of precedent, these cases are not settled law for the moment, and therefore void all ordinances which do not comport with the opinions on the relevant districts. What you initially stated about the rulings only being binding in that municipality was sort of correct with regard to circuit courts as they are not "courts of precedent."

Please read the definition of "binding precedent" and hopefully it will help you understand that Appellate Rulings are indeed binding: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_prece...

Here is an article from the Post-Dispatch confirming my assessment: http://www.stltoday.com/news/traffic/along-fo...
guest

United States

#11 Feb 27, 2014
Three
guest

Arnold, MO

#12 Mar 7, 2014
One
guest

Arnold, MO

#13 Mar 7, 2014
be

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Arnold Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
25 people Arrested on Federal Meth Charges (Sep '13) 7 hr guest 44
Chuck Koenig Thu Oswaldo Mobray 5
Fox C6 Board of Education : Discussion (Jun '14) Aug 23 showman 1,289
Bar for 45 to 62 y/os (Apr '13) Aug 23 Bill 10
Obssession Aug 21 Why Bother 6
What's the Deal With Jefferson College Continui... Aug 14 Eileen 4
Looking Aug 10 Monger 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Arnold Mortgages