[antonico]

So as I understand the Virginia suit, their claim is that the Federal Government is in conflict with a direct state statute forbidding the compulsory purchase of insurance for Virginians. Their case is solely about the Individual Mandate. My question is, to anyone who is a legal eagle, did the Vinson ruling help or hurt the Virginia case? Why did Cuccinelli wait to decide to fast track it AFTER Vinson made his ruling, or is the Vinson ruling inconsequential to the Virginal case?

[ExtremeUnction]

I’d wish they would take it but it’s doubtful. The Supremes believe the wheels of justice should move slowly. But one way or the other it will end up there.

[Tulane]

So as I understand the Virginia suit, their claim is that the Federal Government is in conflict with a direct state statute forbidding the compulsory purchase of insurance for Virginians.
______________

Not quite. Like the Florida suit, it is based on the government overstepping its enumerated powers found in the constitution. The VA statute simply made the issue of whether or not VA had standing to sue easier to meet.

The Florida suit doesn’t help the VA case in the sense that it is simply another federal district court striking the mandate as unconstitutional. Though, it is helpful to see another judge agree.

[Libloather]

...or is the Vinson ruling inconsequential to the Virginia case?

I'm pretty sure they're separate. I'm no lawyer and I'm just picking up bits and pieces from various news stories.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Virginal case?

[kevkrom]

Why did Cuccinelli wait to decide to fast track it AFTER Vinson made his ruling, or is the Vinson ruling inconsequential to the Virginal case?

Because now there are two rulings that affirm the individual mandate is not Constitutional, but they differ in their remedies. It seems reasonable to point out that the divergent rulings from District courts within different Circuits might necessitate a more immediate USSC review (plus any time-critical factors).