E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in a January 2011 photo in Richmond, Va.
From NBC's Pete Williams
The Virginia official most responsible for his state's challenge to the health-care law says he will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the legal dispute over the law quickly, bypassing the federal appeals courts.
Federal law does allow for appealing a trial judge's ruling directly, without waiting for an intermediate appeals court to review the case. It is, however, a legal gambit disfavored by the Supreme Court and rarely granted.
Even so, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) says this is the sort of exception the rules were intended to accommodate.
"Given the uncertainty caused by the divergent rulings of the various courts on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, we feel that it is necessary to seek resolution of this issue as quickly as possible," he said.
"Regardless of whether you believe the law is constitutional or not, we should all agree that a prompt resolution of this issue is in everyone's best interest," Cuccinelli said.
The Justice Department opposes the move, partly on the grounds that if any case should be used to fast-track a decision, this one isn't it, given that the ruling the state seeks to appeal is partly based on fact unique to Virginia -- a state law declaring that residents cannot be required to buy insurance.
"This case is one of two that are already scheduled for argument in the 4th Circuit this May, so going through the usual process would make little difference in timing as to when the Supreme Court could hear it, while allowing the appellate court to thoroughly evaluate the issues," said a Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler.
"The individual responsibility provision does not go into effect until 2014, so there is more than sufficient time for this case to proceed first in the court of appeals," she said.
Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist described the process of leap-frogging over the appeals court as "an extremely rare occurrence." It has been granted in cases of national emergency, such as the Truman administration crisis over nationalizing steel mills and the showdown over Watergate tapes during the Nixon administration.
But the Supreme Court has declined to hear other cases that were deemed to be of national importance, denying immediate review, for example, in the 1998 case that sought to test whether President Clinton could be sued while in office.
Cuccinelli undeniably has a point, because some states are confused about the effect of the two federal court rulings declaring the law unconstitutional. But the split among the lower courts is precisely the sort of condition that the Supreme Court prefers to let the appeals courts sort out before the justices wade in.
Leave a Comment:
What legitimate purpose would there be for delay? Let's get it over with.
Spanky-
What legitimate purpose would there be for delay? Let's get it over with.
For once I agree with you; Smarmy.
How about a little more spin the bottle from you, "Oh Great One"? Would you agree taking it to the Supreme Court was a total waste of tax dollars and republicans used this as stall tatict because they have no jobs plan?
Can we declare today - IGNORE the attention whore Spanky day?
We've been 'feeding' him waaay too much...
If we leave him alone - maybe he can use his 'free' time to do something 'nice' for his 'employees' for a change!
I am totally an attention whore. But I post about 1/3 of what you do, so what does that make you?
But I guess I'm not too surprised - I am someone with opinions that are very different from you and yours. Rather than attempt to engage you call for everyone, (not just you) to ignore me.
It really is perfect and kind of makes the point about you that many here have made before - you are just a silly old gal who likes to bully her way through because there is no there, there. We never had heard what your Phd is in.
Keep on Keeping on Fiesty. You can ignore me all you want but I will always LOVE you.
I wish I had any faith in the impartiality of the current Supreme Court. With at least 2 Tea Party sympathizers on the court, and no ethical requirement to recuse themselves when they know they are not impartial, I think we can count on them to rule in favor of whatever the Teabaggers want.
I heard this is something Senator Ben Nelson was asking for as well. When I heard that little tidbit I was wondering what just happened because I found myself in agreement with the senator, which has never happened before.
Let's get this done now. Justice Kennedy: the ball is in your court.
Nelson wants a do-over. His little "kick back" backfired and he is toast. His only hope appears to be to have the whole thing tossed.
Hey Anna M. yesterday you guessed 5-3. That's for repeal?
Sorry Bev, I cannot figure out what you are asking.
I think it needs to go directly to the Supreme court. I do not think it will because the DOJ does not want it to. Obama and the DOJ will likely seek to delay a final determination, which makes absolutely no sense, given all of the things that go into implementation.
I really hope I'm wrong. And again the government does not create jobs. The best plan it can implement is to stay out of it.
Spanky-
Sorry Bev, I cannot figure out what you are asking.
A Smarmy knows-it-all. I gave you an opportunity to spin the bottle so just in case you are wrong you can blame it on the rotation of the bottle.
I think it needs to go directly to the Supreme court. I do not think it will because the DOJ does not want it to. Obama and the DOJ will likely seek to delay a final determination, which makes absolutely no sense, given all of the things that go into implementation.
Wrong again Swmary
Here's why...
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/repealcosts.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/31/judicial-activism-and-affordable-care-act
I really hope I'm wrong. And again the government does not create jobs. The best plan it can implement is to stay out of it.
Who do you think created teachers, fire department, librarians, and infrastructure worker jobs?
Ahh Bev. Ok, ok. Now just where does the money come from to pay those teachers?
So you are saying the DOJ will request that the matter be taken directly to the Supreme Court?
And Bev. I am concerned that you are openly defying Fiesty's edict. Careful, she might get mad at you.
Spanky-
Ahh Bev. Ok, ok. Now just where does the money come from to pay those teachers?
Guess those are Obama's crooks and liars?
I know you and Fiesty are two individuals Bev. but I assume you to are housed at the same old folks home.
Bev, you cite two websites above. The first is brought to you by HHS, no political appointments there. Funny but they just say that repealing HCR will cost $1 trillion with absolutley no citation or explanation as to where that figure came from. But if its got a .gov on the end of it, so it must be infallable. Your second citation is a blog by Stephanie Cutter, a senior advisor to Obama. Hmmm...blogs are opinion aren't they? Once again, information with no citation.
I am not picking on you...I have quoted blogs but I said in my post that this is from a blog so take it with a grain of salt.
Funny how things change (but not very funny) Its only been months since conservatives whined about judicial activism, now they are whining for judicial activism.
Ok Mr. Big Brain - how is having the case heard by the Supreme Court judicial activism?
And for fun since all us conservatives are stuipid and all, and given your statement yeste rday that you are smarter than me, I'm wondering upon what are you basing that? Why do you believe you are smarter than all conservatives and me in particular?
Or was it just your parakeet that was smarter than me?
If the President really believes Obamacare is constitutional, he should have no problem with the notion of allowing it to be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court...then, after the SCOTUS rules, he can bask in the warmth of the Justices' affirmation of the depth of knowledge that he possesses on constitutional issues as a former constitutional lawyer.
Instead, the Obama Justice Department is appealing the Florida ruling...
Why is that, Patrick?
Spanky. I did not claim to be smarter then all conservatives. Just you
No Patrich that's not what you said yesterday. But ok, why are you smarter than me? What is that opinion based on Mr. Smartguy?
Is it your education? Your business or professional success? Your economic success?
We know it's not your chioce in automobiles. Buick? What's the matter do want to answer the question - why is this judicial activism?
this "Italian stallion" should be careful what he wishes for because if the law is deemed constitutional he will be obliged to enforce the law that much sooner !!!
HCR posts are the new Palin, guaranteed to get a thousand responses...
The supreme court should accept this case instead of waiting for the appeals courts. The supreme court knows that they will eventually get the case, so why wait. The only reason they might want to wait is for the appeals courts to hear the cases and do most of the research as to the constitutionality of the law. The Obama administration wants to delay going directly to the supreme court because they think the more parts of the law they implement will aid their side. The Obama administration does not care about the money that might be wasted or the harm done, they are just grasping for straws. These law suits are to big and costly and should be settled by the supreme court within six months.
Also think about this reasoning for getting more time to implement HCR: The more people that lose their health coverage or are otherwise negatively impacted by Judaical Activism, the less politically palpable the striking down of HCR will become. At the end of the day if the Republicans are seen as responsible for ruining very popular parts of HCR (no exclusions for preexisting conditions for example) the extremely fickle American center will punish them.
Charles. The republicans run a real risk of losing all the gains made in 2010.
sfcret
The supreme court should accept this case instead of waiting for the appeals courts.
You do understand that the supreme court only heres cases after they have goan through the apeals process, this is what the lower court system is for, how do we know that a apeals court will not throw out the case.
Plus the supreme court will never hear a case unless it has goan through the apeals process, even then the high court has not over turned a law from congress in years. just think if Rowe-wade has not been over turned what makes you think HCR will be. even through the reagan years, the high court never came close to over turing that even with a majorty of consertive Judges.
Jeff, You better take a course on the supreme court before posting your comments. The supreme court can hear a case without it going through the appeals process.
sfcret
Jeff, You better take a course on the supreme court before posting your comments. The supreme court can hear a case without it going through the appeals process.
Ok Name me one case, i did not say the High court does not here cases before the apeals process, i said that they never have.
but since I'm wrong, please eduicate me and name one case.
I can imagine a scenario where Judaical Activism on the supreme court could ultimately result in a Public Option being back on the table.
Once people have a taste of no exclusions for preexisting conditions and some of the other extremely popular parts of HCR, they will not be willing to give them up. Without the mandate the Public Option is the only way to pay for these popular parts of HCR.
No one knows how this will shake out but I would find it hilarious if the Republicans indirectly make the Public Option more attainable by challenging a part of HCR that was their own idea.
A very real possibility, Charles!
Where are the jobs, "MR. DRINKER?"
Sounds like he wants to keep violating a patients right to have health care with pre existing conditions ! Another political hack or first year law student ....hmmmmmmm !
In fact, under new health care reform your health insurance company will no longer be allowed to cancel your policy if you get sick, we should be doing this already! search online "Wise Health Insurance" it is a good place to find insurance if you have illness like me.