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
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.
Once again, well done, AG Cuccinelli. Let’s get this matter settled and toss 0bamaCare to the ash heap of history.
Yes; I, too, am almost guessing she won’t. It is, after all, one of the reasons why she was named to the Court.
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".
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
The rulings were in Federal court, not state court.
Go Ken GO!
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.
‘The Justice Department has said it does not support putting the court battle on the fast track”
but of course the lying basxtards
Already happened in this instance...
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
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?
We’re crossing posts here... :>)
LOL ! You beat me by just over 20 seconds.
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.
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.
It’s all that cold air I inhaled yesterday getting dug out from the snow...
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.
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.
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.