Supreme Court Rejects Virginia Request For Immediate Review Of Obama Health Care Law
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has rejected a call from Virginia's attorney general to depart from its usual practice and put review of the health care law on a fast track. Instead, judicial review of President Barack Obama's signature legislation will continue in federal appeals courts.
The justices on Monday turned down a request by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a leading opponent of the law, to resolve questions about its constitutionality quickly. The Obama administration opposed Cuccinelli's plea.
Only rarely, in wartime or a constitutional crisis, does the court step into a legal fight before the issues are aired in appellate courts. Hearings already are scheduled in May and June in three appeals courts.
The case still could reach the high court in time for a decision by early summer 2012.
"The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied," read the full text of the Court's decision in the case of Virginia v. Sebelius, who is the Sec. of Health and Human Services.
I wasn't aware that posting a factual announcement of an event required a comment. I posted it for information... I suppose I could pull a Nmysys and say "What does this mean?"
As for abusing me and calling me names, I'm quite sure you are up to the task. You haven't disappointed so far.
Since so many companies, people, and even states are currently exempt from Obamacare requirements, I don't have a problem with the Supremes letting the lower courts put in their 2 cents worth, but they realize they will eventually have to decide. Any decision will be appealed.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Did you expect that they would take the case before allowing all the lower courts the opportunity to strike it down as unconstitutional and have a unanimous opinion from all of the appellate courts prior to it reaching their court to be struck down? The law could also conceivably be repealed before it takes effect, and what purpose would be served by having the court opine on a repealed law?
And I would agree that it should travel up the judicial ladder when there is time for that to occur, which there is in this instance. Should all of the appellate courts decide the issue in the same manner, it is possible that SCOTUS might not review it at all. If, however, the issue remains divided in the court decisions then they will really have no alternative other than to review it and render a final decision. I would expect that the circuit court decisions would not reverse any of the existing decisions and it will ultimately end up with them, but you never know - especially since the judiciary has become, for all intents and purposes, simply another partisan battleground for the ideology of the political parties in the aftermath of Congress and FDR threatening the justices of the court unless it started seeing things their way.
