Posted on 09/28/2011 12:24:42 PM PDT by Hunton Peck
The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) stole a march on the Obama Administration this morning by filing a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court appealing the 11th Circuit’s Obamacare decision.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) had announced on Monday that it was not going to ask all 11 judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to review en banc the August 12 decision of a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit that found the individual mandate unconstitutional. This opened up a path to an appeal by DOJ to the Supremes.
However, with this petition, the NFIB jumped ahead of Eric Holder’s slow-moving DOJ (which until Monday had done everything it could to slow-walk this case filed by 26 states and the NFIB). The NFIB is obviously not appealing the three-judge panel’s opinion about the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate. But the NFIB is appealing the portion of the panel’s decision that held that the unconstitutional individual mandate could be severed from the Obamacare legislation.
The NFIB is asking the Court to overrule this holding, since “Congress itself deemed [the mandate] ‘essential’ to the Act’s new insurance regulations.” Given that the 11th and 6th Circuits have issued “directly conflicting final judgments about the facial constitutionality of [Obamacare’s] mandate,” the case is one that the Court should obviously take up given its interest in eliminating conflicting opinions in the courts of appeal.
What also differentiates this particular case from the many other lawsuits that have been filed against Obamacare is the “all star” lineup of Supreme Court litigators that the NFIB and the 26 states have lined up to argue their case before the Supreme Court. It includes Michael Carvin, a former DOJ official who has argued (and won) numerous cases before the Court; Gregory Katsas, a former DOJ official who was a clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas; Kevin Marshal, another former DOJ official and Thomas clerk; Hashim Mooppan, a former Justice Antonin Scalia clerk; and Randy Barnett, a nationally recognized constitutional scholar and professor at Georgetown.
The lawyers for the states include Paul Clement, former Bush Administration Solicitor General; Lee Casey, another former DOJ official who clerked for Alex Kozinski, who is now the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit; and David Rivkin, another Supreme Court litigator with wide experience in the government, including in the White House and the DOJ.
The government lawyers in the DOJ’s Office of the Solicitor General who will be arguing the constitutionality of Obamacare will have their work cut out for them.
“Anthony Kennedy is the most powerful man in America. In his hands rests the fate of this country.”
Any sane, rational person sees ObamaCare will destroy this country. I confident Kennedy will vote to kill it.
Given that an appeal to SCOTUS is nothing more than a flick of the game-spinner on the "How well did Anthony Kennedy sleep last night" board game, a 5-4 decision at best means constitutional jurisprudence doesn't have too damn much to do with the process.
On which side of the bed will Kennedy get up when they hear this one?
The nation’s choice. Who pays - the individual or the taxpayer?
Much in the same way we would criticize liberals for judicial activism, it doesn't matter what a sane, rational person thinks of a law - the Supreme Court should be deciding if this law is constitutional or not.
My thought is that the individual mandate will be struck down, but Kennedy not having the cajones to invalidate the whole law based on inseverability.
Agreed. sane, rational = constitutional.
Here’s hoping they aren’t so petty. I’d very much like to be able to have some faith in somebody involved in our government.
I know, terribly selfish of me.
Will Elena recuse herself?
The evidence substantiating the necessity for Sotamywhore to recuse herself needs to be stated clearly and with force and in public.
“...Here’s hoping they aren’t so petty. I’d very much like to be able to have some faith in somebody involved in our government. I know, terribly selfish of me...”
Nah...not selfish. You just want your country back, same as the rest of us, they things we grew up believing in, the same culture, the same ideals and aspirations that being an American and benig part of America was all about before the liberals decided that communism was “you know, not all that bad” (in the words of Whoopie Goldberg) and they set about f***ing up all that was good and decent in the country - because basically, at the end of the day, they’re little more than hateful, jealous, spiteful, small-minded idiots; and deep inside themselves, they KNOW it.
You’re just expressing what millions of other Americans want. We ALL want to wake up one morning and know that there are still Patriots in the fedgov that will stop these socialist lunatics from wrecking everything 100%.
It’s most assuredly NOT selfish (and yes, I got the sarcasm), but I think we’re well past the point of “wishing it were so”...
Ultimately it will be up to US to force these subversive dirtbags out of office and authority.
History has shown that this ideology we are battling doesn’t take too kindly to “the bourgeoisie” refusing to lay down and be raped.
I think they’ll find out though, this time, in THIS land, it won’t be so easy.
THIS bourgeoisie fights back...
Rule ObamaCare UnConstitutional and immediatly toss it. Please do the right thing Supreme Court!
I beg to differ.
The basic reason given for the appeal IS the Serverability issue.
The rest of it (including individual mandate) is secondary. For now.
JMHO, this is going to turn into less of a question of "Is Justice Kennedy going to have a bad hair day" than "Does the ENTIRE court believe in the Constitution and the Rule of Law", because if that atrocious mess gets upheld in any part, the people who voted for it can credit themselves with the destruction of their jobs along with the very things they swore to uphold and defend.
Somebody's just drawn a line in the sand, not just filed an appeal.
No wiggle room, no BS, no more half measures. Either the Law means something or it doesn't.
As I understand it, if the mandate is struck down, it makes the rest of the act unworkable; the non-health-care system will quickly run out of money if the socialists can’t seize money from our bank accounts every month for this new atrocity. Do I understand this correctly, UVNV?
/Sleep well, Kennedy.
So that means that if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the whole act is overturned?
We'll see...
Doesn’t Kagan have to recuse herself on this, since she was Solicitor General?
She should, but I think impeachment would be the only formal recourse if she doesn’t do it on her own.
Lets pray
That’s what I said when this big gubmint Obamanation was passed.
The most powerful man in America is a Kennedy.
Not drunken Ted, assasinated John who would be labeled an evil teabagger by today’s Dems but Anthony.
After repeal, we have to implement free market solutions. I like Ryans plan. It looks a lot like Milton Friedmans plan. But stops a bit short for political purposes.
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.