If you want to be added, please FReepMail me.
Posted on 09/14/2010 6:11:09 AM PDT by Libloather
ObamaCare court fight starts
AP
Last Updated: 4:01 AM, September 14, 2010
PENSACOLA, Fla. -- The Obama administration will try today to persuade a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit by 20 states that claim the president's health-care overhaul is unconstitutional.
The fight, expected to wind up in the US Supreme Court, will primarily be over two sections of the law -- one requiring individuals to have health insurance or face tax penalties, and a second requiring states to pay additional Medicaid costs not covered by the feds.
Attorneys for the states and the Justice Department will each have 45 minutes to present their case to US District Judge Roger Vinson, who is expected to release a written decision later.
Attorneys defending the bill will argue that the section requiring health insurance doesn't take effect until 2015 and that it'll be up to individuals, not the states, to challenge the law then.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I see the DemocRAT running for Florida AG plans to immediately withdraw the lawsuit, if elected. He told Greta that last night.
Thought the Supremes have Original Jurisdiction in this type of dispute. Any legal Eagles know?
“Fathom the odd hypocrisy that Obama wants every citizen to prove they are insured, but people don’t have to prove they are citizens.” ~ Ben Stein
I believe the honorable governor from Arizona showed us how to do the end-around with errant states’ attorneys general.
Ready to Challenge ‘Obamacare’ in Court (video Greta w/McCollum)
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. “
That is pretty plain English that doesn’t require a judge or lawyer to interpret for us.
Unfortunately the Constitution doesn’t apply anymore.
Would it apply if anyone argued it? If so the question is..why do they not make the argument? I thought original jurisdiction meant that the case should go to the Supreme Court first. Could one file an Amicas in this matter?
Good stuff.
It was explained to me this way: SCOTUS can make their own rules for how "original jurisdiction" cases are handled so if they want it to go to a Circuit they can require that. Now I don't agree with it, but that's how Congressman Billybob explained it to me before his passing.
Conservatives are strongly supporting Pam Bondi for AG for that very issue. ObamaCare is not popular in this state especially with the elderly and I can’t see us electing someone who has said repeatedly they would stop the federal lawsuit against it. The last I heard Bondi had a strong lead.
If somehow the left is able to beat Bondi we still have Virginia and numerous other states who have filed. Either way, through the courts, ballot box or revolution ObamaCare will end.
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Its kind of sick that we must ask the usurper of our rights to just stop usurping.
Though that is a correct interpretation, NO STATE is bound by the Constitution to submit to an inferior court, regardless of what they say. Until States start standing up and forcefully asserting their SUPREME RIGHTS OVER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT within the Boundaries of the US CONSTITUTION as written it will only get worse. Unfortunately that would require real Statesmen that have actually read this so called, now irrelevant document, if it really exists.
“the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
“Exercise of its original jurisdiction is not obligatory on the Court but discretionary,”
However, another clause of 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was not accorded the same presumption by Chief Justice Marshall, who, interpreting it as giving the Court power to issue a writ of mandamus on an original proceeding, declared that as Congress could not restrict the original jurisdiction neither could it enlarge it and pronounced the clause void.1093 While the Chief Justice’s interpretation of the meaning of the clause may be questioned, no one has questioned the constitutional principle thereby proclaimed. Although the rule deprives Congress of power to expand or contract the jurisdiction, it allows a considerable latitude of interpretation to the Court itself. In some cases, as in Missouri v. Holland,1094 the Court has manifested a tendency toward a liberal construction of its original jurisdiction, but the more usual view is that “our original jurisdiction should be invoked sparingly.”1095 Original jurisdiction “is limited and manifestly to be sparingly exercised, and should not be expanded by construction.”1096 Exercise of its original jurisdiction is not obligatory on the Court but discretionary, to be determined on a case-by-case basis on grounds of practical necessity.1097 It is to be honored “only in appropriate cases. And the question of what is appropriate concerns of course the seriousness and dignity of the claim; yet beyond that it necessarily involves the availability of another forum where there is jurisdiction over the named parties, where the issues tendered may be litigated, and where appropriate relief may be had. We incline to a sparing use of our original jurisdiction so that our increasing duties with the appellate docket will not suffer.”1098 But where claims are of sufficient “seriousness and dignity,” in which resolution by the judiciary is of substantial concern, the Court will hear them.”
Health Care Battle Hits Pensacola Courtroom
http://www.pnj.com/article/20100914/NEWS01/9140307/Health-care-battle-hits-Pensacola-courtroom
(excerpt)
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said he will decide before Oct. 14 whether to dismiss all or portions of a lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act.
Vinson said he would likely dismiss several of the counts alleged in the challenge to the law, but would allow the lawsuit to proceed under at least one count. The judge did not say which portions of the bill will be upheld and which he will strike down.
The court will have oral arguments Dec. 16 on motions for summary judgments from both the federal government and the states challenging the law.
Challengers to the health care law include 20 states, a small business lobbying group and two private individuals.
Per Rush Limbaugh, Judge Clyde Roger Vinson is a Ronald Reagan appointee and an avid hunter as well a taxidermist. (snicker).....
BTTT
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.