Posted on 02/03/2011 10:05:06 AM PST by Libloather
Cuccinelli Seeking Supreme Court Review of Va. Health Care Lawsuit
Updated: 11:56 AM Feb 3, 2011
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced Thursday that the Commonwealth will file a petition to ask the United States Supreme Court to take Virginia's health care lawsuit now, as opposed to waiting for the case to first be decided by the court of appeals.
The Petition for Certiorari Before Judgment in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth v. Sebelius will be filed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules of the United States Supreme Court.
**SNIP**
Normally, appeals of decisions of United States district courts are first heard in the federal courts of appeals. But Rule 11 provides that an immediate review in the U.S. Supreme Court is permissible "upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in" the Supreme Court.
Cuccinelli noted, "Given his unique responsibilities to fund and implement PPACA as Governor of Virginia, Governor McDonnell is particularly concerned about the possibility of wasting precious and strained taxpayer dollars preparing for a law that may well be struck down."
The Petition for Certiorari and Appendix are currently being assembled by the legal printer for the attorney general and will be filed with the court as soon as is practicable.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsplex.com ...
I’d wish they would take it but it’s doubtful. The Supremes believe the wheels of justice should move slowly. But one way or the other it will end up there.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I see a mindest that is saying that this case is ultimately destined for the SCOTUS, and that very well may be.
However, our side has already won the case and is now the headed to the appellate court. Doesn’t forgoing the appeals court take away one more chance for another favorable ruling on the issue? Another win in the appeals court and the SCOTUS won’t even have to hear the case if they don’t want to and just uphold the previous rulings. At least if we lost in the appeals court we’d have one more chance to win with the SCOTUS. If for some reason we lose going directly to SCOTUS, that’s it, game over.
I’d wish they would take it but it’s doubtful. The Supremes believe the wheels of justice should move slowly.
Historically if there is one justice who is really animated and passionate about wanting to take it, they have done so.
Don't forget - the United States House of Representatives just repealed the entire Commiecare™ law. It' ain't over by a long shot.
So as I understand the Virginia suit, their claim is that the Federal Government is in conflict with a direct state statute forbidding the compulsory purchase of insurance for Virginians.
______________
Not quite. Like the Florida suit, it is based on the government overstepping its enumerated powers found in the constitution. The VA statute simply made the issue of whether or not VA had standing to sue easier to meet.
The Florida suit doesn’t help the VA case in the sense that it is simply another federal district court striking the mandate as unconstitutional. Though, it is helpful to see another judge agree.
Doesn’t forgoing the appeals court take away one more chance for another favorable ruling on the issue? Another win in the appeals court and the SCOTUS won’t even have to hear the case if they don’t want to and just uphold the previous rulings.
_______________
Yes, but the 4th circuit appellate court’s decision would apply only to the 4th circuit. So if we win in the 4th circuit, good for those in the fourth circuit,but nobody else. Likewise, if we lose, only would apply to the 4th circuit. Either way, the Supreme Court will probably take the case, since other district court’s have upheld the law.
I'm pretty sure they're separate. I'm no lawyer and I'm just picking up bits and pieces from various news stories.
Ken Cuccinelli kudos.
This guy is the real thing.
Among the reasons this case and the FL one both need to be heard ASAP is the open contempt with which the Executive Branch views the rulings of the lower federal courts, esp. the FL District Court. The latter indicated without equivocation that the entire HC law was unconstitutional, a ruling which general practice over the years demands that the federal government’s actions must stop, RFN (i.e. no formal injunction should be needed). However the Administration greeted the ruling with contempt; instead of compliance the FL court received defiance and no change of course whatsoever. Either the FL court must issue an injunction or the USSC must take the case that everyone knows will end up there anyway and issue an injunction until it makes a decision.
This is a matter of critical national importance, given the huge portion of the economy that is to be governed by this law, so it is time for the Supremes to $hit or get off the pot.
Virginal case?
The Supremes need to strike while the “iron is hot.” Whatever the legal relationship between the Florida & the Virginia lawsuits, the Vinson decision adds a lot of momentum to repeal of Obamacare. If 5 Supremes WANT to strike it down, the SOONER the BETTER; and it will be easier to do now than if more legal rulings come in on the OTHER SIDE.
Because now there are two rulings that affirm the individual mandate is not Constitutional, but they differ in their remedies. It seems reasonable to point out that the divergent rulings from District courts within different Circuits might necessitate a more immediate USSC review (plus any time-critical factors).
I’m definitely NOT confident we have 5 votes
There’s been a lot of discussion about who is affected by the rulings in VA and FL. Levin said the FL ruling applies nationwide, since what is unconstitutional in FL is unconstitutional in all states.
I don’t recall the same discussion about the VA case. It may be because it was only the Commonwealth of VA that brought the suit and its application to a conflict with state law. Although, under the same principle Levin expressed aout the FL case, if J. Hudson in the VA court declared part(s) of the federal law unconstitutional, wouldn’t it be unconstitutional nationally?
But insofar as the VA decision applies only to VA based on conflict with a VA law, how would it affect the other states in the 4th Circuit. You can bet MD isn’t opposed to any aspect of the federal law.
There difference, I think, is that the VA judge ruled only the individual mandate unconstitutional, so the states were still under obligation to comply with all the other elements of the law (setting up the so-called “exchanges” for example).
However, with the FL ruling that the entire law is unconstitutional, the states are no longer under any obligation to comply with any part of the law, so they shouldn’t have to waste all the money and manpower building a system that, at least for now, has been voided.
It seems some states want to play it safe and execute the law anyway, just in case it is ultimately found constitutional. Other states (the blue ones) simply want Obamacare, so are already proceeding to implement it, pissing away scarce taxpayer dollars building a system that most likely will be struck down by the Supremes.
The Supreme Court owes it the the American taxpayer to expedite a ruling on this monstrosity, once and for all.
Thanks for the explanation. If I understand properly, the VA judge Hudson declared the individual mandate unconstitutional; the FL judge Vinson did the same, but went further, and said that the individual mandate is not separable from the rest of the law, and that makes the whole law unconstitutional?
If the blue states like the federal law, why cant they just adapt it and adopt it as a state law? That would be legitimate, at least within my understanding, since the states CAN mandate constitutionally that which the feds cannot.
Yes.
If the blue states like the federal law, why cant they just adapt it and adopt it as a state law? That would be legitimate, at least within my understanding, since the states CAN mandate constitutionally that which the feds cannot.
Yes, the states can do this legitimately. Just look at Romneycare in MA. And MA now has the highest health insurance costs in the country and, at least according to a talking head I heard on cable the other day, the longest average waiting time to see a primary care physician -- 3 to 4 months.
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.