Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cuccinelli Pushing to Fast-Track Lawsuit (to Supreme Court)
nbc28 ^ | Feb 03, 2011 9:51 AM | nbc29

Posted on 02/03/2011 7:25:27 AM PST by Matchett-PI

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) will push to fast-track Virginia's challenge of the federal health care overhaul to the nation's highest court.

Cuccinelli said the uncertainty caused by various court rulings about the constitutionality of the health care law makes expedited review a necessity.

"Currently, state governments and private businesses are being forced to expend enormous amounts of resources to prepare to implement a law that, in the end, may be declared unconstitutional," he said in a statement. "Regardless of whether you believe the law is constitutional or not, we should all agree that a prompt resolution of this issue is in everyone's best interest."

In December, a federal judge in Richmond ruled portions of President Barack Obama's health care plan unconstitutional. Another judge, this one in Florida, ruled Monday that the entire law is unconstitutional. Two other courts have upheld the act.

Virginia's lawsuit is scheduled for hearings in an appellate court this spring. But Cuccinelli's petition seeks to leap-frog that process to take his case directly to the Supreme Court. It is a highly unusual move, and one the court rarely grants.

"We did not make this decision lightly," Cuccinelli said.

The Justice Department has said it does not support putting the court battle on the fast track


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; bhohealthcare; bhoscotus; cuccinelli; federalism; healthcare; hero; kencuccinelli; lawsuit; obamacare; statesrights; va; virginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151 next last

1 posted on 02/03/2011 7:25:34 AM PST by Matchett-PI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

This will panic the Crats.


2 posted on 02/03/2011 7:29:07 AM PST by screaminsunshine (Surfers Rule)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Yep, go faster, Ken. Make them sweat. :-)


3 posted on 02/03/2011 7:30:03 AM PST by writer33 (Mark Levin Is The Constitutional Engine Of Conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine; sheikdetailfeather; Fudd Fan; MinuteGal; holdonnow

Yep!

I just saw him on FMC a few minutes ago.


4 posted on 02/03/2011 7:31:38 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Trent Lott on Tea Party candidates: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" 7/19/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

FMC = FNC

Sheesh!


5 posted on 02/03/2011 7:32:30 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Trent Lott on Tea Party candidates: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" 7/19/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Like heating up the floor under a swarm of cockroaches.


6 posted on 02/03/2011 7:32:43 AM PST by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33

The Supremes reached down and grabbed the 2000 election recount fiasco thank goodness so perhaps they will see the necessity on this issue.


7 posted on 02/03/2011 7:33:37 AM PST by tirednvirginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Currently, state governments and private businesses are being forced to expend enormous amounts of resources to prepare to implement a law that, in the end, may be declared unconstitutional

People are saying that it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to require citizens to buy something.

I'm pretty sure that there was a time when most felt it was unconstitutional for the Federal Government to force the States to buy anything.

ML/NJ

8 posted on 02/03/2011 7:34:04 AM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

That ruling the other day, the one that deemed the Health Care bill to be unconstitutional, was like a light being turned on while the cockroaches were playing. Look at them go...

I’d love to see this slapped down by the SCOTUS today. That’s not possible, but soon...

Can you sand “RAID”... LOL


9 posted on 02/03/2011 7:34:20 AM PST by DoughtyOne (All hail the Kenyan Prince Obama, Lord of the Skid-mark, constantly soiling himself and our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tirednvirginia

It is a Constitutional issue with a lower court ruling. No reason not to grab it.


10 posted on 02/03/2011 7:35:05 AM PST by writer33 (Mark Levin Is The Constitutional Engine Of Conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
The Politcal Opportunist in me wants this issue to be still hanging out there for the 2012 election-- the better to torture Democrats.

The Patriot in me wants Obamacare killed ASAP.

My only fear is that the SCOTUS may punk out and not kill it. But then again, that would keep the issue alive.

11 posted on 02/03/2011 7:36:21 AM PST by Lysandru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Does the Justice Dept. have to agree to Fast Track?


12 posted on 02/03/2011 7:36:39 AM PST by Old Retired Army Guy (tHE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tirednvirginia

I know they do not want to do it. If the Obamunnists can not get a stay or appeal the ruling stands.


13 posted on 02/03/2011 7:37:43 AM PST by screaminsunshine (Surfers Rule)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
0bamacare had SCOTUS written all over it from the get-go. These cases should be fast-tracked, since the taxes commence years ahead of the actual "care."

I am also waiting with eager anticipation to see what Kagan does about recusing herself.

14 posted on 02/03/2011 7:38:49 AM PST by Miss_Meyet (Every dog has its day. Some days are longer than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

The Supremes can reach down and grab it if they want to.


15 posted on 02/03/2011 7:39:14 AM PST by tirednvirginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Where is the Supreme Court in all of this.. licking themselves or others?..
Are they asleep?.. on another planet?.. playing checkers?..
Where are they.. should they be SLAPPED AWAKE?...

-OR- was Alito and Roberts put in there by George Bush to hamstring the court..
To make them worthless and elite?..

Both Bush's as President were ridden by democrats like rented donkeys.. its true..
Cloward-Piven seems to have been very well thought out..
From the Clintoons to the Bush's to the Obamanoids..

16 posted on 02/03/2011 7:42:13 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; Kolokotronis; Forest Keeper; wmfights

Does it matter which case gets fast-tracked to the Scotus? Is the Florida judge’s opinion a better than that of Virginia?

After all, it was the Florida opinion that declared all of Obamacare unconstitutional since there was no severability clause. The Virginia judge declared only the requirement to buy health insurance unconstitutional.

Will Scotus combine them all, or will Scotus hear one to the exclusion of others?


17 posted on 02/03/2011 7:42:38 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain & proud of it: Truly Supporting the Troops means praying for their Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy
"Does the Justice Dept. have to agree to Fast Track?"

I don't know.

18 posted on 02/03/2011 7:42:43 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Trent Lott on Tea Party candidates: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" 7/19/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Miss_Meyet
"I am also waiting with eager anticipation to see what Kagan does about recusing herself."

Cuccinelli doesn't think she will, per his comments on FNC.

19 posted on 02/03/2011 7:44:23 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Trent Lott on Tea Party candidates: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" 7/19/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Forgive me if this has been covered but I have a question and am hoping someone who knows the answer will see this and respond. My question is in two parts:

If the Health Care bill is ruled "unconstituional" by a state judge, and/or...eventually...the Supreme Court - then would/will it be necessary to hold a vote in the Senate to repeal it?

And now...in Florida, since the HC Bill has been proclaimed unconstituional in that state -- should Florida's senators even vote (and have a countable vote)on something that is not applicable in their state? It seems to me that they can hardly approve/support or vote to repeal the bill that has been deemed unconstituional in their own state.

Isn't voting on something that is denied to have any enforceable merit by our Constitution just a waste of taxpayers' money and senators' time anyway?

20 posted on 02/03/2011 7:44:45 AM PST by CitizenM (If we ever forget that we're one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.-Ronald Re)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
People are saying that it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to require citizens to buy something.

I'm pretty sure that there was a time when most felt it was unconstitutional for the Federal Government to force the States to buy anything.

Don't forget the waiver issue as well. The idea that one can require citizens to buy, yet set waivers for same is beyond constitutional muster as well.

21 posted on 02/03/2011 7:47:18 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Once again, well done, AG Cuccinelli. Let’s get this matter settled and toss 0bamaCare to the ash heap of history.


22 posted on 02/03/2011 7:49:14 AM PST by ScottinVA (The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Yes; I, too, am almost guessing she won’t. It is, after all, one of the reasons why she was named to the Court.


23 posted on 02/03/2011 7:49:14 AM PST by Miss_Meyet (Every dog has its day. Some days are longer than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy; Matchett-PI
Does the Justice Dept. have to agree to Fast Track?

That depends on whom you ask. According to Senator Schumer, the three branches of government are the executive, house, and senate. In actuality they are the legislative, executive, and judicial. As a separate branch of government, they get to make their own decisions about when they schedule cases and whether to "fast track".

24 posted on 02/03/2011 7:49:33 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

Here’s what needs to happen first to give them more cover:

Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional, But Fight for Repeal Must Continue February 1, 2011
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020111/content/01125106.guest.html

“...So right now Obama’s staff is saying we’re not gonna comply with the federal court’s ruling, which is not unprecedented. They did the same thing during the drilling moratorium in the Gulf. You had another judge there who said, “This ruling’s unconstitutional.” They said, screw it, we’re just gonna keep the moratorium in place, and went out and got a bunch of people to make a statement about it and put their signatures to a lie about the dangers involved.

So how should this be dealt with legally now? Any one of the states involved in a litigation, any one of those 26 states has standing to go back to the court and ask the court to enforce its decision and to ask the court to hold the administration in contempt should it continue to defy the court’s order.

That is the legal option that any of the states, any of those attorney generals have in those 26 states. In fact, if I were an AG for a state, if I were an attorney general, I would take that news article with that quote, this is ABC: “Noting that the judge did not order the government to stop implementing the law, a senior administration source said ‘implementation will proceed at pace.’” I would take that ABC story and this passage and go back to court today with a draft contempt order, and I would ask the court to hold an immediate hearing to determine whether the Obama administration is going to comply with the rule or not. ..”

<>

Some states aren’t waiting, however:

Officials won’t implement health care law (Florida returns loot, Wisconsin pulls the plug)
Bradenton ^ | 2/02/11 | JANET ZINK By JANET ZINK - Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau Updated: Wednesday, Feb. 02, 2011
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2667204/posts


25 posted on 02/03/2011 7:50:14 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Trent Lott on Tea Party candidates: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" 7/19/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CitizenM

The rulings were in Federal court, not state court.


26 posted on 02/03/2011 7:50:33 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Go Ken GO!


27 posted on 02/03/2011 7:51:03 AM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tirednvirginia
The Supremes reached down and grabbed the 2000 election recount fiasco thank goodness so perhaps they will see the necessity on this issue.

The fastest that I remember the Supreme Court reacting was to a federal law prohibiting burning of the flag. The law was passed shortly after the Court ruled against a STATE law prohibiting desecration of the flag.

I think someone burned a flag on the Capitol steps within a few days, so he would be arrested. It went from the district court to the Supreme Court in record time, apparently because the law in question said it had to do so, and that the Court must grant certiorari, and was required to hear it on an expedited basis.

US v. Eichman

28 posted on 02/03/2011 7:53:29 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

‘The Justice Department has said it does not support putting the court battle on the fast track”

but of course the lying basxtards


29 posted on 02/03/2011 7:53:48 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
So how should this be dealt with legally now? Any one of the states involved in a litigation, any one of those 26 states has standing to go back to the court and ask the court to enforce its decision and to ask the court to hold the administration in contempt should it continue to defy the court’s order.

Already happened in this instance...

30 posted on 02/03/2011 7:56:28 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

Re my post #25 above, here’s a good example of the sort of thing Rush and Mark Levin are saying should happen to the lawlwss Obama administration regarding Obamacare being ruled unconstitutional, and therefore null and void:

Judge Holds Obama’s Czar in Contempt Over Gulf Drilling Ban
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12827405

The federal judge who struck down the Obama administration’s moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt Wednesday, and ordered the federal agency to pay attorneys’ fees for several offshore oil companies.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman chided the department for its “dismissive conduct” after he overturned the agency’s decision to halt any new permits for deepwater projects and suspend drilling on 33 exploratory wells after the Deepwater Horizon blast, which killed 11 workers and triggered the massive spill.

After Feldman overturned the government’s moratorium in June, the agency issued a second nearly identical suspension.

“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt of this court’s preliminary injunction order,” he wrote.

[snip]bttt


31 posted on 02/03/2011 7:56:50 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Trent Lott on Tea Party candidates: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" 7/19/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
To stop ObamaCare we will have to fast track the appeal process bypassing the intermediate courts.

The Obama administration has already said it is going to ignore the Florida decision. They are going to establish the bureaucracies, collect the fines, and do other things to establish ObamaCare’s supporting infrastructure. Once that happens the infrastructure will remain and continue to function because it is too costly/difficult to dismantle.

Can anyone name a singe governmental infrastructure that has ever been dismantled?

32 posted on 02/03/2011 7:58:11 AM PST by Nip (TANSTAAFL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

We’re crossing posts here... :>)


33 posted on 02/03/2011 7:58:11 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

LOL ! You beat me by just over 20 seconds.


34 posted on 02/03/2011 7:58:22 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Trent Lott on Tea Party candidates: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" 7/19/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CitizenM
If the Health Care bill is ruled "unconstituional" by a state judge, and/or...eventually...the Supreme Court - then would/will it be necessary to hold a vote in the Senate to repeal it?

If the Supreme Court rules the law is unconstitutional, then it's struck. There's no need to hold a vote.

A state judge cannot rule a federal law is unconstitutional. That's the job of a US District Court judge (first), then usually a panel of US Circuit Court judge (second, on appeal), and finally the Supreme Court.

And now...in Florida, since the HC Bill has been proclaimed unconstituional in that state -- should Florida's senators even vote (and have a countable vote)on something that is not applicable in their state? It seems to me that they can hardly approve/support or vote to repeal the bill that has been deemed unconstituional in their own state.

Vinson is a judge in the Northern District of Florida. Currently, his decision only applies to that area. However, since he declined to issue an injunction, there are no penalties if the Obama administration decides to ignore him.

If the legislation is first repealed by Congress (which is unlikely), the FL senators will have the same opportunity to vote on it.

35 posted on 02/03/2011 7:59:56 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
I had a response to my question in another thread regarding the effect that an injunction against enforcement issued by Judge Vinson in Florida would have on the process. The responder stated that though the Judge's decision applied only to his district, an injunction would apply nationwide. How accurate is he?
36 posted on 02/03/2011 8:00:59 AM PST by Tonytitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

The USSC is pretty much compelled to intervene when there are conflicting lower court rulings. So far we have 4 rulings with three different results:

1) The law is Constitutional (x2)
2) The individual mandate is not Constitutional, but the rest of the law may stand
3) The individual mandate is not Constitutional, and the entire law is voided

However, these are District court rulings. Under normal circumstances, the USSC would wait until there are conflicting Circuit court rulings. I just don’t know if these can be considered normal circumstances given the breadth and impact of the law in question.


37 posted on 02/03/2011 8:01:18 AM PST by kevkrom (De-fund Obamacare in 2011, repeal in 2013!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

It’s all that cold air I inhaled yesterday getting dug out from the snow...


38 posted on 02/03/2011 8:03:02 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
Right, sorry...but the question still remains.

I can't understand why any vote is necessary on a bill that our Constitution does not allow and that cannot be legally enforced. It seems to me that it should just be tossed out with no voting necessary.

Holding a vote in the Senate, in essence, signifies that the HC Bill has legal credibility, which it does not. And, for any Senator to vote to keep it would mean that they are openly breaking their pledge to uphold the Constitution, and are imposing illegal mandates on their constituents. In which case, they should be removed from office.

39 posted on 02/03/2011 8:03:07 AM PST by CitizenM (If we ever forget that we're one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.-Ronald Re)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Nip

That’s something any “reform” from the newly awakened (Tea Party) Americans is going to have to concentrate on - dismantling this “infrastructure”.

Unaccountable power to control people attracts leftists like moths to a porch lamp. Time to bust out the lightbulb.


40 posted on 02/03/2011 8:06:15 AM PST by MrB (Tagline suspended for important announcement on my about page. Click my handle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

They are now praying that a conservative on the bench expires before this goes to SCOTUS. It’s there only hope.


41 posted on 02/03/2011 8:06:59 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Thank you. I reposted the question in a reply before I saw your response. Now it all is a little more clear to me, LOL. Glad there are experts on here.


42 posted on 02/03/2011 8:07:08 AM PST by CitizenM (If we ever forget that we're one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.-Ronald Re)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Miss_Meyet
I am also waiting with eager anticipation to see what Kagan does about recusing herself.

Now, that's an intriguing concept.

BTW, I wonder why the USSC didn't have original jurisdiction in this case. I'm stupid when it comes to these things, so there's probably a simple explanation.

43 posted on 02/03/2011 8:08:23 AM PST by savedbygrace (But God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CitizenM

If the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) agrees with the federal judge in Florida and rules the entire ObamaCare legislation to be unconstitutional, then Congress does not need to repeal anything - the entire law will be void.

For your second question, are you talking about the Florida Senate or the U.S. Senate?


44 posted on 02/03/2011 8:09:11 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CitizenM

The ruling was by a federal district court. That means it has to go through the appeals process. Thus, the legislative act still has legal credibility. It was signed into law, remember.

I posted in a thread some days ago that a vote in Congress would be more symbolic that anything, but on further thought I’ve changed my mind. If anything is to be done now, it should be on both fronts. Voting to repeal, even if it doesn’t mount to a veto-proof majority, would send a clear message to the administration that he’s being challenged on both fronts. It would also send a clear message to the American people that two branches of our government are in agreement over the constitutionality of this legislative act.


45 posted on 02/03/2011 8:11:00 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
"Vinson is a judge in the Northern District of Florida. Currently, his decision only applies to that area."

FALSE. He is a Federal Judge and his ruling of UNCONSTITUIONALITY" takes precidence over the other 3 rulings.

February 1, 2011
Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional, But Fight for Repeal Must Continue

RUSH: "....So if the administration goes to the appeals court with a stay request that's actually good for us, that's the point. The state of play legally right now is that a federal court has voided the law. It's unconstitutional, right now, immediately.

The administration thus has to go to the appeals court to stay that ruling in order to continue its implementation pending a final decision by a higher court. That's the point. They request a stay, they are acknowledging the judge's ruling. And then they have to make an argument for a stay. Now, if you are preparing to call this program and say to me, "Hey, blowhard, two other federal judges said it is constitutional." If you're wondering what I would say, should I get disrespectful phone calls like that, let me take a brief time-out and come out and explain in detail. For example, if a New Castrati gets through to Snerdley, "Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Limbaugh, you sound so confident, you sound like you know it all, but we know that two other federal judges have said this law is constitutional. What about that?" Mr. New Castrati, it means nothing. Your two other rulings mean nothing. And I will explain why in mere moments.

RUSH: Here's the answer to the question that I knew I'd get and I still might get it from the New Castrati. "Well, we have two other federal judges who said that Obamacare is constitutional. What about that? What about that? What about that?" Here's the true answer. Don't doubt me. It means nothing. Here's why: If even one court rules that a law is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter that two courts haven't. This is pure logic, folks. If one court -- just one, this Judge Vinson -- rules that a law, any law, is unconstitutional, the regime does not have the ability to choose between court decisions. It can't say, "Well, I'm gonna ignore Judge Vinson. I'm gonna go back. We're gonna obey and deal with these other two."

[]They can't do that. The regime must comply with federal court rulings. Isn't that what the libs tell us, by the way? Those two decisions are of no consequence because they don't prevent the government from acting. We have a ruling here that in its scope supersedes those two. This decision voids Obamacare. This decision throws it out. This decision prevents the federal government from acting. This decision prevents the federal government from implementing the law. So, as a matter of legal recourse, the regime needs to get that resolved. It cannot say, "We don't care what the court says." It cannot say, "We're gonna rely on the decisions that we like."

So we all know where this is headed. It's gonna be up to the Supreme Court to sort out the divisions among the lower courts, which it will do when it eventually rules. In the meantime, the executive branch is not free to pick and choose or sort them out. It must comply with a decision striking down the law. The legal experts are guessing next year the case will be in the appeals court and SCOTUS will take it up in 2012. That's just people guessing as to the timeframe of this. My point is that the regime has to deal with the federal decision voiding its law. In the other cases, they didn't have to take any action. No action was needed because the courts didn't rule that way.

Courts just ruled on various aspects, but it did not prevent the regime from acting. This decision does. Now, the Republicans in the House and Senate must be ready for the Supreme Court to take an opposite position. I'm not saying they will, and I hope to God the court doesn't. But you have to assume that. It's like in golf, you have to assume the opponent's gonna make the putt. You just have to assume the other side is gonna perform to its max. You just have to assume that in preparing your strategery. The Republicans in the House and Senate, as a matter of strategy here, must be ready for the Supreme Court to overturn Judge Vinson. That's why, in the meantime, they must continue to pursue repeal of the whole law.

None of this, "Well, there are parts of it that we like." They got cover now: A judge has said the whole thing is unconstitutional, so ditch the whole thing, defund the whole thing. No deals, no negotiations. Kill it. Now, this is counterintuitive to certain Republican leaders that spent years and years up there making deals and looking for common ground, but this is not an occasion to look for common ground. This is an occasion to build upon a decision that rules the fundamental building block of Obama's reason to be president: Unconstitutional. Don't misread this and conclude that for PR and political reasons they'll do something weak or something else. It would be disastrous for them to the party and mostly the nation. A golden opportunity awaits!

46 posted on 02/03/2011 8:12:03 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Trent Lott on Tea Party candidates: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" 7/19/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

I’m sorry, I have no simple explanation for you. Someone far more intelligent than I am will have to give you the answer...


47 posted on 02/03/2011 8:12:36 AM PST by Miss_Meyet (Every dog has its day. Some days are longer than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Tonytitan
"I had a response to my question in another thread regarding the effect that an injunction against enforcement issued by Judge Vinson in Florida would have on the process. The responder stated that though the Judge's decision applied only to his district, an injunction would apply nationwide. How accurate is he?"

Not accurate at all. See my last post above.

48 posted on 02/03/2011 8:14:53 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Trent Lott on Tea Party candidates: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" 7/19/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

“The Justice Department has said it does not support putting the court battle on the fast track”

No surprise here. zero is praying to allah that he wins in 2012 and Kennedy retires or dies so that he can appoint a Marxist to uphold unlimited federal power.

The Congress should pass a resolution that calls upon the SCOTUS to expedite the review process along with the other repeal and de-funding efforts.


49 posted on 02/03/2011 8:15:08 AM PST by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

During the hearings for Kagan, a senator tried to get her to go on record, ie, to “trap” her about what she would see as any law outside the authority of the Congress,
with obvious implications on 0bamacare.
“Would it be unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law requiring people to eat vegetables?”

She sidestepped it with her [annoying nasally voice] “well, that would be a dumb law” but refused to say that she’d rule it unconstitutional. In other words, in her legal worldview, there is no limit on the power of the gov’t.

The question would remain - if 0bamacare is legal, if people can be required to purchase health insurance, then exactly what WOULDN’T be constitutional?
Absolutely NOTHING. And we no longer live in a Constitutional republic.


50 posted on 02/03/2011 8:17:25 AM PST by MrB (Tagline suspended for important announcement on my about page. Click my handle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson