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
They are now praying that a conservative on the bench expires before this goes to SCOTUS. It’s there only hope.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
I’m sorry, I have no simple explanation for you. Someone far more intelligent than I am will have to give you the answer...
Not accurate at all. See my last post above.
“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.
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.
See my post #46
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2667927/posts?page=46#46
I'm not an expert, by any means. But, I've learned to do my own research and not take anyone's word for it: especially the "experts".
Everyone has an agenda, including me. My agenda is simply for people to not get excited over something that hasn't happened yet.
ObamaCare is not dead, by a long shot. But, it's been wounded pretty seriously.
[Ooops, we're not supposed to be be using those metaphors. :-)]
There’s just way too much optimism here. Be careful. :-)
Agreed. Get it fast tracked. I saw today where insurers and health care providers are still going full steam ahead anyways, not allowing some judge to put the brakes on the “law of the land”. Read that in the morning Gannett rag.
Done. Vinson is a Federal District Court Judge.
"Vinson is a judge in the Northern District of Florida. Currently, his decision only applies to that area."
Normally, yes, but not in this situation. Since 26 states joined the suit in total, they are ALL sharing in the decision.
"However, since he declined to issue an injunction, there are no penalties if the Obama administration decides to ignore him.
You need to go read page 75 of the decision. The Judge specifically pointed out that his ruling had the same effect of an injunction and therefore it wasn't necessary to issue the separate order. Defying the decision would definitely be subject to a possible contempt citation. The only question I have is when/whether any of the parties will choose to go back to Vinson and ask for that contempt ruling.
Vinson is a US District judge in the northern district of Florida.
All the other judges ruling on this issue so far are also US District judges. Their rulings apply only to their own districts. That's the way that the federal court system works.
District Court opinions may be cited as precedent by other districts in rendering their own rulings. But, they don't automatically apply to the rest of the country.
If an ruling is appealed, it usually goes to the Circuit Court: in this case, it's the 11th (GA, FL, and AL). If the ruling is sustained, the scope expands to those states. It only becomes effective nationwide if the Supreme Court rules on the issue, and they rarely take a case unless there is a disagreement among Circuit Courts.
Stop repeating Rush's (or anyone else's) talking points and do some research for yourself. You might learn something.
By court precedent, the remaining states did not have to be argued -- they were carried along by Idaho and Utah. Thus all 26 became valid parties to the suit and are likewise impacted by the ruling.
No, that's incorrect. A district court judge cannot rule for states outside his district. It doesn't matter if they joined the suit. Jurisdictional rules prohibit the states from "shopping". What the states did was pool their resources to get a favorable ruling in a friendly district (and a friendly circuit), so that they could set up a conflict that the Supreme Court was unlikely to ignore.
You need to go read page 75 of the decision. The Judge specifically pointed out that his ruling had the same effect of an injunction and therefore it wasn't necessary to issue the separate order. Defying the decision would definitely be subject to a possible contempt citation.
I have. And while I admire the judge's hopefulness that the federal government will comply, without the injunction he cannot force them to do so, and cannot cite them for contempt.
The only question I have is when/whether any of the parties will choose to go back to Vinson and ask for that contempt ruling.
First, they will have to get an injunction. Vinson has already declined to issue that, but maybe he will change his mind.
But, even with an injunction, getting a citation for contempt may be hard. Someone will have to show injury. The State of Florida has already indicated that they are going to hold off implementation of anything (although it's unclear what the retribution can or will be). If the Obama administration avoids doing anything in the Northern district of Florida, this judge won't be able to cite them.
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.