E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Pete Williams
The United States Supreme Court today took no action on a request from the state of Virginia, which is asking the court to fast-track a challenge to the Obama health care law.
The justices were to have discussed the case last Friday, but today's delay signals that they're not yet ready to say what they'll do about Virginia's request.
The court does not always take immediate action after the justices talk about pending matters in a closed-door conference; cases are sometimes repeatedly placed on the calendar for discussion. The reason may be that one or more of the justices wants to write a dissent to the court's action, or there could be other factors they want to consider.
Virginia's Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, wants the Supreme Court to let the state bypass the normal federal appeals process and take the case directly to the justices. The court's rules allow for this, but it is something that is granted only very rarely. The Justice Department opposed the request to come to the Supreme Court on a fast track.
Virginia's is one of several challenges to the centerpiece of the law, the requirement that virtually all Americans buy health insurance.
Two federal judges, in Virginia and Florida, have found that provision unconstitutional. Three others, also in Virginia and in Michigan and Washington, DC, have found the law constitutional.
Leave a Comment:
Well, I give Pete Williams credit, at least, for including the current "box score" the law has received in federal court, but as long as he wanted to mention that his story was about one of many challenges in court, you think he might have mentioned all the cases that have been thrown out for one reason or another before even going to trial.
IIRC, this particular part of the law doesn't take effect until 2014, so it seems to me there is no particular reason for the USSC to expedite it; let it go through the usual route up through the court system.
And, while that is going on, let the federal courts take a close look at the ethics and standards of all the judges in its system with regard to political activity, investments, recusal, etc. Up to and including the USSC, which seems to have no standards at all.
But it seems reasonable to me that if you could need medical care then you should get medical insurance. Whether you want to or not. Same thing if you drive a car.
The brithers, gop, & tea party, & the rushbo, & australian run fox news will tell you that it isn't the same. That you have a choice to drive and the only thing you can do to not need medical care is to commit suicide. Yet they are forced to admit that there is a choice there just like in driving a car.
I fail to see the difference: mandatory health insurance or mandatory car insurance?
Mandatory car insurance, in theory, is different because it keeps other drivers financially safe cuz if you cant pay damages that you inflicted on another driver by a car accident your insurance will cover it. I think you are right, once the government starts making us buy ANYTHING a slippery slope has just been formed and plus driving's a risk....and if the person cant pay he could go to jail....do you think people would start driving more carefully?
I lack any respect for the Robert's Court after it said that campaign contributions can be limitless and that sources do not have to identified. It has allowed, is allowing and will allow the fat cats, rich , corporations and businesses to buy the elections and the offices of our government. Of course, isn't that what the right wing and conservatives have wanted all along?
Who are these people that oppose health care reform? Who pays for their health care? Why should this country settle to be 35th in ranking of health care by the World health organization? Why should surviving spouses have to file bankruptcy after the death of their husband or wife? Good grief, 3rd world status here we come. (I would argue we have already arrived.) How in the hell can this be a Liberal/Conservative issue?