Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 30 Jun '15 17:08
    quote:

    The [US] Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from Nevada over a lawsuit that claims the state wrongfully bused indigent psychiatric patients to San Francisco without paying the costs of their medical care.

    The justices on Tuesday let stand a lower court decision that said California state courts have authority to hear the case challenging Nevada's discharge policies.

    San Francisco is seeking $500,000 in reimbursement costs for treating 29 patients who were given vouchers for one-way bus tickets to California. It also wants an order barring Nevada from sending over any more patients.

    A California Superior Court judge ruled that Nevada could be sued in California because it knew San Francisco would have to spend money on the patients.

    Nevada claims the lawsuit interferes with its sovereign powers.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/high-court-hear-nevada-patient-dumping-case-32125190
  2. 30 Jun '15 17:26
    Originally posted by JS357
    quote:

    The [US] Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from Nevada over a lawsuit that claims the state wrongfully bused indigent psychiatric patients to San Francisco without paying the costs of their medical care.

    The justices on Tuesday let stand a lower court decision that said California state courts have authority to hear the case challenging Nevada's ...[text shortened]...

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/high-court-hear-nevada-patient-dumping-case-32125190
    You say Nevada gave these patients vouchers for one way transportation to San Francisco. That seems to indicate to my reading, that the patients voluntarily used the vouchers. True?
  3. 30 Jun '15 18:45
    Originally posted by JS357
    quote:

    The [US] Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from Nevada over a lawsuit that claims the state wrongfully bused indigent psychiatric patients to San Francisco without paying the costs of their medical care.

    The justices on Tuesday let stand a lower court decision that said California state courts have authority to hear the case challenging Nevada's ...[text shortened]...

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/high-court-hear-nevada-patient-dumping-case-32125190
    What's your point? Are you insinuating that state's do not have sovereignty based on that case? If that's your point, you are clearly wrong. If states did not have sovereignty, why do we have state and local government? Why don't the feds call all the shots?

    As to the case you cited, the link does not provide a case name nor a copy of the courts' opinions. So we don't know what happened procedurally in the case, why Nevada claims the lawsuit interferes with its sovereign powers, and the courts' reasoning on the controlling issues.

    However, there is case law on waiver and consent as applied to sovereign immunity. A state can consent to be sued. Likewise, a state may waive sovereign immunity. So if you point is states do not have sovereignty, the link you provided is a non-starter. Nevada may have consented to the lawsuit or waived its sovereign immunity.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jun '15 18:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    You say Nevada gave these patients vouchers for one way transportation to San Francisco. That seems to indicate to my reading, that the patients voluntarily used the vouchers. True?
    What do you consider "voluntary" in the case of an indigent, mentally ill person? This:

    In March, the Sacramento Be first reported the story of 48‐year‐old James Flavy Coy Brown, a former Rawson‐Neal patient who was sent on a 15‐hour bus ride to Sacramento—despite having
    never before visited there, having no friends or family members in the area, and with no prior arrangements for his care, housing or medical treatment. The Nevada‐run hospital had discharged Brown in a taxicab to the Greyhound bus station with a one‐way ticket to Sacramento, snacks, and a three‐day supply of medication to treat his schizophrenia, depression and anxiety. Brown was instructed to call 911 when he arrived. A Rawson‐Neal physician reportedly recommended “sunny
    California” to Brown as a destination, according to the Sacramento
    Bee, because they “have excellent health care and more benefits than you could ever get in Nevada.

    http://www.sfcityattorney.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1343

    Why shouldn't Nevada have to reimburse the California cities affected if these allegations are true?
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    30 Jun '15 18:46
    Originally posted by JS357
    quote:

    The [US] Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from Nevada over a lawsuit that claims the state wrongfully bused indigent psychiatric patients to San Francisco without paying the costs of their medical care.

    The justices on Tuesday let stand a lower court decision that said California state courts have authority to hear the case challenging Nevada's ...[text shortened]...

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/high-court-hear-nevada-patient-dumping-case-32125190
    States do have sovereign immunity. The federal government can abrogate that immunity in some cases, but other states cannot. If I get around to reading the opinion, I'll be interested to see on what basis California is claiming to abrogate Nevada's sovereign immunity.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jun '15 18:58 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    States do have sovereign immunity. The federal government can abrogate that immunity in some cases, but other states cannot. If I get around to reading the opinion, I'll be interested to see on what basis California is claiming to abrogate Nevada's sovereign immunity.
    States do not have sovereign immunity from claims by other States:

    Suits brought by another state

    Similar to the U.S. v. State exclusion above, a state may also sue another state in the federal court system. Again, there would be a conflict of interest if either state's court system tried the case. Instead, the federal court system provides a neutral forum for the case.

    Under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over cases between states. Congress, if it so chooses, may grant lower federal courts concurrent jurisdiction over cases between states. However, Congress has not yet chosen to do so. Thus, the United States Supreme Court currently has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases between state governments.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States#State_sovereign_immunity_in_federal_courts

    EDIT: I see the SCOTUS let stand a lower court ruling allowing the case to proceed in California State Courts. That's a bit puzzling; I'll try to find that lower court ruling.
  7. 30 Jun '15 19:34
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    What do you consider "voluntary" in the case of an indigent, mentally ill person? This:

    In March, the Sacramento Be first reported the story of 48‐year‐old James Flavy Coy Brown, a former Rawson‐Neal patient who was sent on a 15‐hour bus ride to Sacramento—despite having
    never before visited there, having no friends or family members in the area, a ...[text shortened]... shouldn't Nevada have to reimburse the California cities affected if these allegations are true?
    Voluntary is voluntary, unless the individual can be shown to be less than capable for his own good. Lots of controversy over that too. States and relatives used to declare people incapacitated, therefore not deserving of normal civil rights. Mental hospitals were closed because many felt they were simply prisons for unpopular people.
  8. 30 Jun '15 20:29
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    What's your point? Are you insinuating that state's do not have sovereignty based on that case? If that's your point, you are clearly wrong. If states did not have sovereignty, why do we have state and local government? Why don't the feds call all the shots?

    As to the case you cited, the link does not provide a case name nor a copy of the courts' ...[text shortened]... ed is a non-starter. Nevada may have consented to the lawsuit or waived its sovereign immunity.
    "What's your point?"

    Settle down it's not as anti-state as it might seem.

    A key point is: Do we naively imagine that states won't try to screw other states if given the opportunity? This is a counterexample.

    One of the warnings against the breakup of the Union was that it would lead to state vs state shenanigans. Ultimately this sort of thing would lead to restrictions on entry. That is very inefficient.

    Another point is that states with more generous welfare systems will be incentivized into a "race to the bottom" by such events..

    I imagine that the best legal approach that would respect Nevada's rights and sovereignty, assuming they don't pay up and desist in the practice, would be for private California government oversight groups -- like the California Taxpayers Association -- to urge California Taxpayers to boycott Nevada including of course Las Vegas.. I am sure that a large share of Nevada corporate and therefore state revenue comes from California.
  9. 30 Jun '15 20:46
    Sending nuts to San Francisco is like shipping coals to Newcastle.
    What's the problem?
    (Ya gotta be like 60 to get the reference it's an obsolete phrase today, no kid would get it. Buncha ignorant stoopid heads)
  10. 30 Jun '15 21:30
    States have been shipping their x-convicts to other states for quite some time now.
  11. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    30 Jun '15 22:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    What's your point? Are you insinuating that state's do not have sovereignty based on that case? If that's your point, you are clearly wrong. If states did not have sovereignty, why do we have state and local government? Why don't the feds call all the shots?

    As to the case you cited, the link does not provide a case name nor a copy of the courts' ...[text shortened]... ed is a non-starter. Nevada may have consented to the lawsuit or waived its sovereign immunity.
    States only have as much sovereignty as allowed by the federal government. As MoneyMan Mike puts it...
    That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.
  12. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    30 Jun '15 23:27
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    Sending nuts to San Francisco is like shipping coals to Newcastle.
    What's the problem?
    (Ya gotta be like 60 to get the reference it's an obsolete phrase today, no kid would get it. Buncha ignorant stoopid heads)
    Sorry this is off topic
    but why over 60 to get the reference?
    (Actually I am surprised it is known in US at all)
  13. 01 Jul '15 09:53
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    (Ya gotta be like 60 to get the reference it's an obsolete phrase today, no kid would get it. Buncha ignorant stoopid heads)
    I know the phrase. I do not know much about Newcastle's coal business and only 'get the reference' because I know the phrase. I am not ignorant - just not British.

    Turns out its a very old phrase:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coals_to_Newcastle