Skip to comments.Appeals panel hearing ObamaCare suit comprised of 2 Obama nominees and a Clinton nominee
Posted on 05/10/2011 7:00:58 AM PDT by UniqueViews
A three-judge federal appeals panel comprised of two Obama nominees and a Clinton nominee will hear arguments later this morning in two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the national health care law.
The makeup of the U.S. Fourth Circuit of Appeals panel is crucial, because in lower court rulings so far, Democratic judges have upheld the law while Republican judges have declared it unconstitutional.
The judges on the panel will be Obama nominees James A. Wynn, Jr and Andre M. Davis, who will sit on the panel along with Clinton nominee Diana Gribbon Motz.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
The 3-0 ruling that was going to be , will now be 2-1.. just to make it look fair.
Elections HAVE consequences!!!
That means any judge who ignores the constitution and rules in his favor can forget about any promotions for the next eight years.
I'm sanguine that at least the smart and ambitious judges will follow the constitution and rule against Obama.
Easy call,even if you are a liberal,just follow the law and get ahead.
It (the election) was ALWAYS about the judges.
we need the 2nd circuit
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE WAY TO ACHIEVE GOOD THINGS IS TO HAVE GOVERNMENT DO IT...YOU CAN’T THINK OF A MORE SOCIALIST PROGRAM THAN HEALTH CARE...
PRIMARIES HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
Good grief. I’m sure they’ll be fair. /s
“Conforming to non-conformity is conforming just the same”
Yes, and believing that there’s no God is believing just the same
In better news, rabid anti-gun Judge Weinstein of NY got his ass handed to him in a recent decision by a higher court.
there is no “stopping” the suits...this WILL hit SCOTUS soon enough.....
Obviously the leftis plan is to slow down the appeals and keep the implementation going. When SCOTUS finally puts it on their docket it will be a moot point unless the Republican House can find a way to defund Obamacare. But that will set up another government shutdown threat (oh, the horror...).
More than that, they should be fearing impeachment.
I thought the whole point of the Judicial branch was to have a non-political interperetation of the law?
The 4th Circuit (MD, VA, WV, NC, SC) was - in the past - a bastion of strict constructionists. Thus, the Bush judicial nominees to the 4th Circuit were targeted for delay - to the point of setting the record for the longest court nomination never processed by the Senate. So the left was able to eviscerate even the 4th. Yet even after the 2010 elections, the pubbies are letting Obama’s nominees get to a vote. On the theory that we want to play fair. So that they’ll play fair with us in return, as outlined below?
Amazing that failed/evil thought processes espoused by only 20% of the country nonetheless dominate the schools, the gov’t & the courts. Atlas is Shrugging.
List of stalled, filibustered or blocked nominees,
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit:
Maryland seat vacated by Francis D. Murnaghan, Jr. - Claude Allen, followed by Rod J. Rosenstein (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Andre M. Davis)
North Carolina seat vacated by James Dickson Phillips, Jr. -Terrence Boyle, followed by Robert J. Conrad (Boyle was nominated by President Bush in May 2001. After waiting six years, President Bush withdrew his nomination January 2007, making this 2001-2007 nomination the longest court of appeals nomination never processed by the Senate; Robert Conrad was nominated July 2007, but the Senate Democrats refused to process his nomination during the Democrat-controlled 110th Congress; judgeship later filled by Obama nominee James A. Wynn, Jr.)
South Carolina seat vacated by William Walter Wilkins - Steve A. Matthews (judgeship later filled by North Carolina Obama nominee Albert Diaz)
Virginia seat vacated by H. Emory Widener - William J. Haynes, II, followed by E. Duncan Getchell, followed by Glen E. Conrad (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Barbara Milano Keenan)
I heard the administration invoked the “necessary and proper clause” in defense. No doubt “general welfare,” “due process,” “interstate commerce,” and “equal protection” came up. They’ll keep whatever 9th amendment argument they can come up with based on Scottish common law in their back pocket for SCOTUS.
“I thought the whole point of the Judicial branch was to have a non-political interperetation of the law?”
Why would you expect politicians in political offices to be non-political?
In the past, the judiciary were supposed to be non-political, but I guess that's now a quaint old notion, and our illustrious leaders will pat us on the head and smile when we mention it.
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
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.