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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court takes no action on request to expedite health-care law review (relist for 4/22)
WaPo ^ | 04/18/2011 | Robert Barnes

Posted on 04/18/2011 4:01:59 PM PDT by OldDeckHand

The Supreme Court on Monday took no action on Virginia’s request that it immediately review the nation’s health-care overhaul law.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; bhohealthcare; cuccinelli; healthcare; lawsuit; legal; obamacare; ruling; scotus; statesrights; supremes; virginia
A little strange to relist a petition for expedited hearing. I'm not quite sure what to make of it.
1 posted on 04/18/2011 4:02:03 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

This is good, it needs to work its way up thru the court system first. The USSC most of all knows this.


2 posted on 04/18/2011 4:05:17 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour (With The Resistance...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Right. But, they didn't deny it or approve it. They bumped it a week. That's what strange. Usually, if they aren't going to grant cert for expedited hearing, what is known as a petition for certiorari before judgement, they do so without comment and quickly.

I wonder if this portends some kind of internal division over hearing it early.

3 posted on 04/18/2011 4:11:34 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

They should be concerned as it’s causing irreparable harm on a daily basis.


4 posted on 04/18/2011 4:19:00 PM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

The USSC is waiting to hear from Sebelius if they will be granted a waiver or not before making a decision.


5 posted on 04/18/2011 4:23:13 PM PDT by blackdog (The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; Lurking Libertarian; tired_old_conservative

Very strange indeed. Maybe they didn’t finish their discussion in conference and needed more time?


6 posted on 04/18/2011 4:43:14 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. *4192*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackdog

{:-)


7 posted on 04/18/2011 4:46:19 PM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Any SCOTUS decision on Unconstitutional Obamacare is irrelevant. SCOTUS is not the final authority on the Constitution. That power is reserved for the fourth and most powerful branch of government, we the people.


8 posted on 04/18/2011 4:51:04 PM PDT by Defend Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Good Friday?


9 posted on 04/18/2011 4:58:51 PM PDT by SouthTexas (You cannot bargain with the devil, shut the government down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defend Liberty
That power is reserved for the fourth and most powerful branch of government, we the people.

I understand that, but am always wondering. What is the immediate, direct practical action of this, short of revolution or those sort. Ballots? Theoretically, it is true since the people vote for the president and the Congress, which at one point will appoint a SCOTUS justice. But it's not direct.

10 posted on 04/18/2011 5:12:47 PM PDT by paudio (The differences between Clinton and 0bama? About a dozen of former Democratic Congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SouthTexas

“Good Friday?”

I can’t speak of Good Friday without recalling Reno’s abduction of Elian Gonzales from the home of his family and his ultimate return to Cuba.

EODGUY


11 posted on 04/18/2011 5:14:20 PM PDT by EODGUY (Hold on to your copies of the Consititution of the United States. It is going to be re-written.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: paudio
I understand that, but am always wondering. What is the immediate, direct practical action of this, short of revolution or those sort. Ballots? Theoretically, it is true since the people vote for the president and the Congress, which at one point will appoint a SCOTUS justice. But it's not direct.

I'm not sure how you define immediate but information at the following website may help. www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ Look at the right column and click on the article titled "Just Say “NO!” to Unconstitutional Federal Acts "
12 posted on 04/18/2011 5:41:53 PM PDT by Defend Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

The Supreme Court on Monday took no action


No one in Washington takes any meaningful action — as the nation sinks into Ruin.


13 posted on 04/18/2011 5:42:20 PM PDT by PaleoBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; Delacon; ...

Thanks OldDeckHand.


14 posted on 04/18/2011 5:43:54 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link -- http://www.friendsofitamar.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Sounds like someone didn’t show up for work today...trying to avoid this....so it was relisted...


15 posted on 04/18/2011 5:55:56 PM PDT by shield (Rev2:9 Blasphemy of them which say they're Israelites, and are not, but are the synaGOGue of Satan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
I wonder if this portends some kind of internal division over hearing it early.

"Kagan, Sotomayor, they were cheap! Ginsburg, same...Stevens, a little more but...Scalia! Roberts! Alito! Damn them! Kennedy, Breyer, we'll see...


16 posted on 04/18/2011 5:56:39 PM PDT by COBOL2Java (Obama is the least qualified guy in whatever room he walks into.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; OldDeckHand; Lurking Libertarian; tired_old_conservative
Very strange indeed. Maybe they didn’t finish their discussion in conference and needed more time?

You could say that.

17 posted on 04/18/2011 6:50:46 PM PDT by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on its own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
They bumped it a week.

I'm sorry I don't see that in the article. Could you please provide more info? Thanks.

18 posted on 04/18/2011 7:24:29 PM PDT by upchuck (Think you know hardship? Wait till the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
good - we want the states suit before the scotus - vinson threw out the entire law - virginia only got the individual mandate tossed
19 posted on 04/18/2011 7:36:53 PM PDT by sloop (don't touch my junk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1014.htm


20 posted on 04/18/2011 7:44:26 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Whenever you want an update on the docket of a pending case, you can use that search tool.


21 posted on 04/18/2011 7:46:32 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Reason: A Conservative Defense of ObamaCare (conservative court decision might not just depend on Justice Kennedy's mood)
22 posted on 04/18/2011 7:56:32 PM PDT by yup2394871293
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
A little strange to relist a petition for expedited hearing. I'm not quite sure what to make of it.

That's like calling 911 and being put on hold.

23 posted on 04/18/2011 8:37:47 PM PDT by Know et al
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yup2394871293

Yep, a “conservative” who endorsed Obama in ‘08 ... if that’s anyone’s idea of a conservative. A lot of people are still riding the “I worked in the Reagan Administration” meme right to the bank as if that certifies their bona fides 30 years later.


24 posted on 04/18/2011 8:42:38 PM PDT by EDINVA (wh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Here is what Virginia's AG just said about the relist:

NO DECISION YET!!

Dear Friends,

The United States Supreme Court Justices met last Friday to discuss whether or not to grant Virginia's request to expedite our healthcare case directly to the Supreme Court - thereby bypassing the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Virginia, along with many other states and companies, has been left with great uncertainty regarding the healthcare bill. Virginia alone is spending millions of dollars preparing to implement the bill - despite the fact that if Virginia's legal challenge succeeds, the bill may well be stricken before it is ever fully implemented.

The Supreme Court did not make an announcement today on whether or not it was going to expedite the case. Instead, they relisted the case on their docket for this Friday, April 22nd.

What does that mean?

It means that they haven't rejected our request - yet. Remember, requests to expedite are infrequently granted. However, it also probably means that one or more of the Justices want more time to consider the question.

It also means that there appears at least to be interest in the petition at the court, which is itself encouraging. If my numbers are right, over 90% of petitions addressed in these conferences are summarily rejected because no Justice has any interest in them. So, the fact that the Justices didn't summarily dismiss our petition is itself interesting and at least modestly encouraging (hopefully not in the vein of what your mother told you growing up: "the worst thing they can do is ignore you"... of course, my mother has never filed a petition with the Supreme Court).

Generally speaking, we would expect an opinion issued Monday the 25th; however, it is Easter weekend, so I don't know if that will have an impact on timing, but I'll let you know as soon as we find out!

Stay tuned.

Sincerely,

Ken Cuccinelli, II

Attorney General of Virginia


25 posted on 04/18/2011 8:55:36 PM PDT by shield (Rev2:9 Blasphemy of them which say they're Israelites, and are not, but are the synaGOGue of Satan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EODGUY

Just wondered if they would even be there.


26 posted on 04/18/2011 9:10:19 PM PDT by SouthTexas (You cannot bargain with the devil, shut the government down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

Why does it have to go through the appellate process? It’s all been briefed, and the issues are clear. The appellate process is a time waster in this case, and will only cost the states money implementing a plan that may be deemed unconstitutional, or if they delay, cost more to implement if it’s deemed constitutional. The only ones who want the delay are the Obama DOJ because they believe time is on their side.


27 posted on 04/18/2011 9:15:06 PM PDT by EDINVA (wh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

This means the US supreme court is actually considering the request, instead of dismissing it out of hand. “No news is good news” in this case.


28 posted on 04/18/2011 11:56:25 PM PDT by paratrooper82 (We are kicking Ass in Afghanistan, soon we will be home to kick some more Asses in Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
“Why does it have to go through the appellate process?” Because the obumbum's want to buy themselves as much time between now and the election as they can! A decision against the obumbum administration from the US Supreme Court will destroy the ability of obumbum to fool the American people again and get elected!

obumbum and company need more time and the only way to do that is to drag the case out through every US appellate court they can on the way to the US Supreme Court. This is just another tactic of the socialist communist!

29 posted on 04/19/2011 12:02:51 AM PDT by paratrooper82 (We are kicking Ass in Afghanistan, soon we will be home to kick some more Asses in Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

That’s a handy tool. Thanks!


30 posted on 04/19/2011 6:40:28 AM PDT by upchuck (Think you know hardship? Wait till the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Defend Liberty

“Any SCOTUS decision on Unconstitutional Obamacare is irrelevant. SCOTUS is not the final authority on the Constitution. That power is reserved for the fourth and most powerful branch of government, we the people.”

So how do you propose to undo a decision of the Supreme Court?
Pie in the sky?


31 posted on 04/19/2011 8:51:48 AM PDT by secondamendmentkid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: shield

I am guessing this is 4 to 4 and Kennedy needs to make up his mind. It’s a damn shame that Robert Bork was not confirmed.


32 posted on 04/19/2011 9:57:38 AM PDT by MSF BU (YR'S Please Support our troops: JOIN THEM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]



Spend a Lot of Time at Free Republic?
Get a Lot of Information?


Donate what you can afford

Or sign up to donate monthly
and a sponsoring FReeper will donate $10

Urgent: Save Lazamataz! Donate today

33 posted on 04/19/2011 10:02:16 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MSF BU
"I am guessing this is 4 to 4 and Kennedy needs to make up his mind"

You need five votes to decide Supreme Court cases, but to hear a Supreme Court case only requires four affirmative votes - it's called, "The Rule of Four". So, if it's not heard, then VA couldn't even get four justices to hear the case in an expedited manner. That wouldn't be unusual. Cert is RARELY granted before final judgement.

My guess is that either one (or more) Justices either want more time to consider the issue before making a decision on whether or not grant cert before final judgement, or there's a justice or two that wants to write a dissent from the decision to not grant cert. That happens, although it happens pretty rarely. Most denials are issued without comment.

34 posted on 04/19/2011 10:06:10 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: secondamendmentkid
So how do you propose to undo a decision of the Supreme Court?

Read post #12 and click on the link.
35 posted on 04/19/2011 10:07:15 AM PDT by Defend Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MSF BU

Actually, it only takes 4 justices in conference to move this forward.


36 posted on 04/19/2011 10:57:10 AM PDT by shield (Rev2:9 Blasphemy of them which say they're Israelites, and are not, but are the synaGOGue of Satan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

OK, well Alito, Scalia, Thomas & Roberts...it would be interesting to know who is standing where. I wonder if we will ever get an explanation.


37 posted on 04/19/2011 11:16:30 AM PDT by MSF BU (YR'S Please Support our troops: JOIN THEM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: shield

It would be interesting to hear Robert Bork’s take on this.


38 posted on 04/19/2011 11:22:00 AM PDT by MSF BU (YR'S Please Support our troops: JOIN THEM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MSF BU
"I wonder if we will ever get an explanation."

Not unless a Justice(s) offers a dissenting comment at denial. Those Conferences are about as secret as a Catholic Conclave. They NEVER talk.

39 posted on 04/19/2011 11:23:33 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Defend Liberty

“Read post #12 and click on the link.”

Really great in THEORY but factual EXECUTION is pie in the sky, ie. a pipe dream. Unfortunately, wishing don’t make it so.


40 posted on 04/19/2011 8:07:42 PM PDT by secondamendmentkid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: yup2394871293

“It also eliminates the burden of “free” care that hospitals must provide to “emergency” patients who lack insurance. If taxpayers may be forced to pay for such treatment, the thinking goes, those patients may be forced to get coverage (or else pay a fee for declining).”

Let us not also mention the total absence of authority in the Constitution for Congress to force healthcare providers to give out their goods and services effectively free of charge. This is a problem of the Federal Government’s own lawless creation in the 1986 COBRA law. Now they have the Gaul to try and “fix it” by usurping even more of our rights!

“Nor do the Constitution’s guarantees of personal liberty necessarily protect an individual’s right not to do something. In 1905, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state of Massachusetts could fine anyone who refused to get a smallpox vaccination—a far more intrusive and intimate command than buying insurance.”

Its hard to beleive we would create a Federal Government capable of doing anything its politicians fancy particularly where it overlaps with the powers of the States. Why bother having States when the Feds will simply stomp on our autonomy? Never-mind don’t answer that you imperialist bigot. I will meet you on the battle field Liberty or Death! I plan to kill the First federal agent that try’s to rob from me my choice not to have someone else manage my healthcare costs.

Someone needs to ask Fried where in practice does the Federal government’s power end. Shall we uses this power to prohibit anyone and everyone from ever buying a liberals services due to the clear effect on interstate commerce their services cause?


41 posted on 04/19/2011 11:52:53 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

I retract that last emotional outburst I don’t plan to kill anyone.


42 posted on 04/19/2011 11:59:01 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Defend Liberty

“Any SCOTUS decision on Unconstitutional Obamacare is irrelevant. SCOTUS is not the final authority on the Constitution. That power is reserved for the fourth and most powerful branch of government, we the people.”

I agree letting SCOTUS dictate the limits of its own defining Constitution is madness.

Directly akin to letting the prisoners(The Government chained by the Constitution) elect one of their own as the warden with full power to let them go.


43 posted on 04/20/2011 12:12:48 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: secondamendmentkid
““Any SCOTUS decision on Unconstitutional Obamacare is irrelevant. SCOTUS is not the final authority on the Constitution. That power is reserved for the fourth and most powerful branch of government, we the people.”

So how do you propose to undo a decision of the Supreme Court?
Pie in the sky?”

I don't see a reason for “undoing” a passive court ruling. It is the active ones that demand non-federal agents act or not act that can and should be ignored.

I actually agree with Marshall in the original Marbury v. Madison in the respect that the court has the responsibility to enforce the Federal Constitution upon the other 2 branches.

The catch is they don't have any kind of exclusive responsibility nor final say on the matter, nor can they(as illustrated and admitted to in Marbury v. Madison force the other sides to DO anything.

All the Federal court can do is let people wrongly convicted off and order things to stop. In other-words they have the power to nully not to order. Nor is that power by any means exclusive to them, as indicated in the original Marbury v. Madison this is a power granted to them via the oath they took, the exact same oath every federal Officer and State legislator must take.

You see our constitution is not enforced by any 1 group but rather by all groups of all different interests upon each other. Only in this way can a Constitution of civil government be maintained for only in this way can you you prevent any one group from substituting that constitution for their own will rather the the consent of all of the Governed it is suppose to be.

44 posted on 04/20/2011 12:26:28 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

NO IT DOESN’T, Our Constitution is very clear that “In all cases where a State is a Party... The SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION”. Refusal By the Supreme Court to ACCEPT it’s Responsibility under the US Constitution is Defacto granting the State the Right to decide the issue anyway they want. Just because the SUPREME COURT REFUSES to Abide by the Constitution does not mean that A STATE has to play along. ANY STATE CAN FORCE THE ISSUE TOMORROW, if they had the guts.


45 posted on 04/20/2011 8:51:52 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Read the 11th amendment. One of the first successful applications of nullification with threat of interposition led to the 11th amendment.


46 posted on 04/20/2011 3:37:25 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

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