Skip to comments.
Supreme Court Rejects Virginia Request for Review of Health Care Law
Fox News ^
Posted on 04/25/2011 7:17:28 AM PDT by ejdrapes
Supreme Court Rejects Virginia Request for Review of Health Care Law
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; bhohealthcare; bhoscotus; cuccinelli; healthcare; lawsuit; obamacare; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
Just breaking news banner on Fox so far...
1
posted on
04/25/2011 7:17:30 AM PDT
by
ejdrapes
To: ejdrapes
2
posted on
04/25/2011 7:18:38 AM PDT
by
Christian Engineer Mass
(25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many conservative Christians my age out there? __ Click my name)
To: Christian Engineer Mass
Sounds like Anthony Kennedy had a bad-hair day. But this is just to bypass the appeals courts, I believe.
3
posted on
04/25/2011 7:19:31 AM PDT
by
ScottinVA
(Imagine.... a world without islam.)
To: ejdrapes
Is this just the expedite ruling, to make it go faster?
4
posted on
04/25/2011 7:21:32 AM PDT
by
paulycy
(Islamo-Marxism is Evil.)
To: ejdrapes
Your header is false. SCOTUS rejected fast-tracking the review. It will yet end up in the SCOTUS, just not as soon as Cuccinelli would prefer.
5
posted on
04/25/2011 7:21:37 AM PDT
by
jla
To: ScottinVA
Well it's going to end up with them anyway. Why all the delay?
6
posted on
04/25/2011 7:21:43 AM PDT
by
ejdrapes
("Trump is NO conservative." - Jim Robinson)
To: paulycy
7
posted on
04/25/2011 7:22:15 AM PDT
by
jla
To: jla
That's the header on Fox News's website. I didn't think we were allowed to alter headers.
8
posted on
04/25/2011 7:22:33 AM PDT
by
ejdrapes
("Trump is NO conservative." - Jim Robinson)
To: Christian Engineer Mass
Where does it say 5-4? The link only had a banner with the headline.
It takes 4 (out of 9) Justices to grant a writ of certiorari to hear an appeal; I honestly don't know if there's a higher threshold for an appeal directly from a district court.
9
posted on
04/25/2011 7:22:58 AM PDT
by
AuH2ORepublican
(If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
To: ejdrapes
Probably just saying they will not hears it until fall,
To: paulycy
Apparently so, but they didn't say that on Fox Business (where I first heard it). When Stuart Varney read it out he had a look on his face like a member of his family died.
11
posted on
04/25/2011 7:24:03 AM PDT
by
ejdrapes
("Trump is NO conservative." - Jim Robinson)
To: ejdrapes
What is the number of justices that need to agree to hear the case? Did we just witness a cloaked 5-4 ruling? Or did just one justice say no and who was it? My money is on Butch.
12
posted on
04/25/2011 7:24:20 AM PDT
by
cashless
(Unlike Obama and his supporters, I'd rather be a TEA BAGGER than a TEA BAGGEE.)
To: ejdrapes
Summer vacation, starts end of may.
To: ejdrapes
You may alter it in (parentheses).
14
posted on
04/25/2011 7:25:30 AM PDT
by
jla
To: ejdrapes
...or clarify in lead-off post.
15
posted on
04/25/2011 7:26:54 AM PDT
by
jla
To: jla
I would have clarified if I had known that.
16
posted on
04/25/2011 7:27:46 AM PDT
by
ejdrapes
("Trump is NO conservative." - Jim Robinson)
To: ejdrapes
Choosing, for now, to remain on the sidelines of the national constitutional debate over the new health care law, the Supreme Court refused on Monday to put Virginias challenge to the law on a fast track with review by the Justices ahead of any appeals court decisions. There were no dissents noted, and there was no comment. The Court granted no new cases.
The legal side of the health care controversy will now revert to six federal courts of appeals where challenges are unfolding; the first hearing in one of those cases will be May 10 at the Fourth Circuit Court in Richmond, Va.
17
posted on
04/25/2011 7:28:03 AM PDT
by
TribalPrincess2U
(They don't need to do another 911. They have BHO and the Fleebaggers.)
To: cashless
I believe it is 4.
18
posted on
04/25/2011 7:28:16 AM PDT
by
ejdrapes
("Trump is NO conservative." - Jim Robinson)
To: ejdrapes
Dereliction of duty.
Clowns wearing black robes.
The Constitution means nothing to them anymore.
To: ejdrapes
This may be great news, since the US Supreme Court [conservative] Justices do want to come across as “eager” to over turn the Obama administration's signature law “obamacare.” this way, when the Justices do finally get the case before them, (after exhausting the Federal Appeals process) they can use those findings (opinions) to overturn the massive government usurpation of Americans basic Rights.
These conservative Justices are not stupid, especially when they all know that the Obamanites, i.e. old news media, blogs etc., will disseminate them if they jump the gun on this issue and rule against Obama.
They are simply going to overturn Obama by the book, by the letter of the law, and strictly by the limitations found in our Constitution.
20
posted on
04/25/2011 7:30:39 AM PDT
by
paratrooper82
(We are kicking Ass in Afghanistan, soon we will be home to kick some more Asses in Congress!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson