Article, then # 1 # 5 , # 6.
Thanks, Art in Idaho.
Posted on 06/30/2012 10:19:34 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
Rule 44. Rehearing 1. Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time. The petitioner shall file 40 copies of the rehearing petition and shall pay the filing fee prescribed by Rule 38(b), except that a petitioner proceeding in forma pauperis under Rule 39, including an inmate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. The petition shall state its grounds briefly and distinctly and shall be served as required by Rule 29. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). A copy of the certificate shall follow and be attached to each copy of the petition. A petition for rehearing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision. 2. Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari or extraordinary writ shall be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial and shall comply with all the form and filing requirements of paragraph 1 of this Rule, including the payment of the filing fee if required, but its grounds shall be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is restricted to the grounds specified in this paragraph and that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). The certificate shall be bound with each copy of the petition. The Clerk will not file a petition without a certificate. The petition is not subject to oral argument. 3. The Clerk will not file any response to a petition for rehearing unless the Court requests a response. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant a petition for rehearing without first requesting a response. 4. The Clerk will not file consecutive petitions and petitions that are out of time under this Rule. 5. The Clerk will not file any brief for an amicus curiae in support of, or in opposition to, a petition for rehearing. 6. If the Clerk determines that a petition for rehearing submitted timely and in good faith is in a form that does not comply with this Rule or with Rule 33 or Rule 34, the Clerk will return it with a letter indicating the deficiency. A corrected petition for rehearing submitted in accordance with Rule 29.2 no more than 15 days after the date of the Clerk’s letter will be deemed timely.
If the pleadings address the problems with Roberts' decision, I think he will realize how big a mistake he made and the outrage at this decision could also influence him to make a new decision. Since the Court is in its Summer recess, that will give Roberts a long time to re-evaluate his error.
The party desiring a rehearing needs to get five justices to agree to it, including a justice in the majority. Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito would obviously agree to a rehearing, so getting Roberts to agree is all that is required to reverse this decision and there would be no oral arguments.
Filing a petition for rehearing is a logical and potentially effective way to get rid of Obamacare at the earliest time possible.
The formatting looked good in the preview.
ping
What makes you think Roberts believes his ruling was erroneous or would admit to such?
I’m not sure of the meaning of “at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision”, but it seems to be that a member of the original majority must be among the majority deciding to accept the petition. How it could be otherwise eludes me, unless perhaps a decision was decided 4-3 with two justices absent from the initial decision.
Your interpretation that getting Roberts to agree would reverse the decision and that there would be no oral arguments in the process looks off to me. I think the “no oral arguments” applies to the process of accepting the petition. Once accepted, the merits of the arguments in the petition could probably be argued orally at the rehearing. And Roberts could join in accepting the petition, but the law wouldn’t be reversed unless he also joined in deciding against the law after the rehearing.
Nonetheless, an interesting option given the convoluted way Roberts justified his decision. Hopefully there’s a legal mind out there working on something that would convince him to reconsider.
Exactly! I wonder if it would make a difference to him that, after saying the only way Obamacare could be enacted is if it was a tax, the administration is insisting that it isn’t?
Right after the ruling, Obama and the Dims have been denying this is a tax. Would that be grounds to demand a rehearing?
Did either party ever have a chance to address whether the mandate was presented as a tax law?? Seems like there’s a lot of misrepresentation involved if the law was never presented that way, plus the plaintiffs should have a fair chance to address the applicability of the power to tax as a matter of constitutionality.
ha ha ha good luck with that
The solicitor for the administration did argue both in a Florida hearing and in front of the SCOTUS that is was a tax and not a penalty or mandate as it was sold and publicly defended as.
The one other point that may be at issue is that since Harry Reid called the voting rules of the senate as a reconciliation for this bill essentially, making it legally a tax because of the voting rules. Maybe in ruling on all the facts, maybe Roberts had no option, ergo the initial opinion statement that a mandate was unconstitutional.
I agree, what makes anyone think the votes would come out any different.
Great but I doubt any of the losers will file for rehearing. Have you heard that any will?
Certain groups were granted waivers from having to pay what is now a “tax”. Could there now be an issue under equal protection?
Roberts noted at the beginning of his opinion that the question of whether or not it was a tax was expressly asked and denied:
Held: The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
648 F. 3d 1235, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does notbar this suit.
The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that thosesubject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individualmandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated asa “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.
So if it isn’t a tax, it isn’t Constitutional. And Obama is now arguing that this wasn’t a tax? I would call the court back...
The next day - on the merits of Commerce clause argument, the govt attorney was allowed to argue that it was indeed a tax and NOT a penalty in that if a person who paid the "whatever it is" for not having secured healthcare they would "be in full compliance with the law". It was this argument upon which Roberts based his decision that it was a tax and not a penalty.
So both Roberts and the gov attorney allowed that it was a tax when convenient to their argument and it was not a tax when it was not.
The next day - on the merits of Commerce clause argument, the govt attorney was allowed to argue that it was indeed a tax and NOT a penalty in that if a person who paid the "whatever it is" for not having secured healthcare they would "be in full compliance with the law". It was this argument upon which Roberts based his decision that it was a tax and not a penalty.
So both Roberts and the gov attorney allowed that it was a tax when convenient to their argument and it was not a tax when it was not.
No, he knew exactly what he was doing. That was clear in his obviously ridiculous finding. There is no reason for him to reconsider given what his intention was in the first place, to find a way to uphold the law.
Article, then # 1 # 5 , # 6.
Thanks, Art in Idaho.
I am not jumping on the Justice Roberts did the wrong thing quite yet.
The filing alone would help throw it into doubt, while keeping it negatively front and center in the news.
The ruling didn’t cite which taxing authority of the congress that this new tax is to be levied under according to Mark Levin. I will wait and listen for his legal interpretation as to the application of this rule be fore I get my hopes up.
They could file for a hearing asking for more “clarification” on the tax issues and how it would apply to the “waiver” issues!
As a recovering attorney, the chances of a Petition on Rehearing being granted are almost nil. Doesn’t hurt, but don’t bank on it.
I think that once someone actually pays the “tax” the “tax” can be challenged as being unconstitutional because it of a type not enumerated in the Constitution.
CC
Not . . . . ever . . . . gonna . . . . happen (said the lawyer). I’ve argued before SCOTUS. There is a greater chance that you will walk to Mars.
dont sweat it good find
Nice thought, but SCOTUS has ruled in the past many a time that individual citizens have no standing to contest a tax.
Does anyone know of ANYBODY who is pursuing this? Like a real constitutional lawyer or Heritage Foundation or.... anyone? Or are we just wishing here?
The man is an intellectual fraud resorting to debating tactics that would not even survive in high school. At this point this man's life merits pure ridicule.
,,,, , don’t hold your breath waiting for the 40th day ,,,, and which spineless republican in congress would have the cajones to stand up to a activist supreme court decision ???? NONE !!!!! God and the Tea Party may be our last best hope . Very sad at best .
,,,, , don’t hold your breath waiting for the 25th day ,,,, and which spineless republican in congress would have the cajones to stand up to a activist supreme court decision ???? NONE !!!!! God and the Tea Party may be our last best hope . Very sad at best .
Yes, so true.
Any merit to this?
1. Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or deci sion of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time. The petitioner shall file 40 copies of the rehearing petition and shall pay the filing fee prescribed by Rule 38(b), except that a petitioner proceeding in forma pauperis under Rule 39, including an in mate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. The petition shall state its grounds briefly and distinctly and shall be served as required by Rule 29. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). A copy of the certificate shall follow and be attached to each copy of the petition. A petition for rehearing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision.
2. Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari or extraordinary writ shall be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial and shall comply with all the form and filing requirements of paragraph 1 of this Rule, including the payment of the filing fee if required, but its grounds shall be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is restricted to the grounds specified in this paragraph and that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). The certificate shall be bound with each copy of the petition. The Clerk will not file a petition without a certificate. The petition is not subject to oral argument.
3. The Clerk will not file any response to a petition for rehearing unless the Court requests a response. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant a petition for rehearing without first requesting a response.
4. The Clerk will not file consecutive petitions and petitions that are out of time under this Rule.
5. The Clerk will not file any brief for an amicus curiae in support of, or in opposition to, a petition for rehearing.
6. If the Clerk determines that a petition for rehearing submitted timely and in good faith is in a form that does not comply with this Rule or with Rule 33 or Rule 34, the Clerk will return it with a letter indicating the deficiency. A corrected petition for rehearing submitted in accordance with Rule 29.2 no more than 15 days after the date of the Clerk’s letter will be deemed timely.
The fastest way to end this is to call an article 5 convention...OR, the 26 or so states bring up articles of secession and threaten secession from this pile of shit and get OUT of the union.
Now dont write back to me and say that articles of secession are unconstitutional..since this ruling in effect has put a final end to the constitution, then these states can do whatever the Eff they want.
Get on the horn to your state legislators and start the process. I have, and AZ has already started talking of the necessary steps. Lets see just how much guts the rest of the states have.
Thanks for the ping.
The state house(s) is where relief from Federal tyranny will come. It always has been thus. I want out of this empire.
Sic semper tyrannis
Same here. I hope we in Texas are first.
If big 'T' makes a break for it I want to come and help. You're not going to start a party like that without me! Just don't assume those coming in are all hostile. We need an IFFF system.
You would not beleive all the secession bumper stickers we are seeing now in east Texas now. If we could get the entitlement crowd out of this state, this would be Consevative Heaven.
WHEREAS, the majority of the Court found that Obamacase was only constitutional through the taxing authority of Congress;
WHEREAS, the President through his own words and spokesperson continues to this day to deny there is a tax provision;
WHEREAS, the denial not withstanding, Obamacase through its taxing authority raises revenue yet DID NOT ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES;
WE PRAY the Court rehear the case and strike down Obamacare as it does not meet the criteria laid out in the majority opinion.
IOW:
ROBERTS: the only this thing works is if it is a tax.
OBAMA: it is not a tax
ROBERTS: then it doesn’t work
make that “the only WAY this thing...”
Good..I trust you and your friends will push your state people to go forth then?
Get them on the horn to your state legislators!
It need not be violent..that would be left up to the other side. And I doubt it would even get that far. They’d start with the “What’d we do?’ BS and then whine and cry.
Remember...we DO NOT NEED THEM, but they need us.
I’d sooner kick the M effers the hell out of the union..the northeast states and the west coast and Ill etc. But it’d be easier to split and stand back and watch them go right down the shit hole they created for themsleves.
I never meant to imply that the chances are good for a rehearing; just that there is a rule governing one. Maybe those two weeks in Malta will clear his head.
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.