Supreme Court takes no action on request to expedite health-care law review (relist for 4/22)

WaPo ^ | 04/18/2011 | Robert Barnes

[OldDeckHand]

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

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

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

[OldDeckHand]

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.

[traderrob6]

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

[blackdog]

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

[BuckeyeTexan]

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

[SuperLuminal]

{:-)

[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.

[SouthTexas]

Good Friday?

[paudio]

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.

[EODGUY]

“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

[Defend Liberty]

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 "

[PaleoBob]

The Supreme Court on Monday took no action

---

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

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks OldDeckHand.

[shield]

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

[COBOL2Java]

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...

[Talisker]

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

You could say that.

[upchuck]

They bumped it a week.

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

[sloop]

good - we want the states suit before the scotus - vinson threw out the entire law - virginia only got the individual mandate tossed

[OldDeckHand]

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