Posted on 12/18/2010 1:13:58 PM PST by EDINVA
This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia declared the federal health insurance mandate and its penalty unconstitutional. The next day, Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius published an op-ed in The Post ["A health reform for everyone"], arguing that the federal government is justified in claiming the power to order citizens to purchase health insurance....
***************
Eegardless of whether one agrees with the court's ruling, .... the question of the law's constitutionality can be conclusively resolved only in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, the Justice Department appears to wish to delay that resolution for as long as possible. On the same day The Post published the Holder and Sebelius op-ed, Assistant Attorney General Tony West faxed me a letter conveying the Justice Department's decision not to join Virginia in seeking to fast-track this case by skipping the appeals court and taking it directly to the Supreme Court.
*****************
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Did a search and could not find this posted. If it's a duplicate, please remove. Thanks.
The O administration does NOT want to go straight to the USSC. They are hoping to delay delay delay and go to appeal instead.
They’re probably hoping one of the conservative justices dies in the mean time.
I wonder if Sotomayer wouldn’t have to recuse herself?
Delay is the name of the game. No reason not to get this to the SCOTUS. In the meanwhile, there may be a favorable decision for the various states’ AGs in Florida. Gonna be one Battle Royal whenever it happens.
Yeh they must know they are going to lose.
That's why I'd stall, if I were arguing the case on behalf of Obama.
Ultimately, if the regime wins in the courts, half the doctors in the country are going to quit. There’s nothing the regime can do about that, without repealing the 13th Amendment.
“the question of the law’s constitutionality can be conclusively resolved only in the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Bull$*@t!
This small sentence just about made me blow my top. Is this where we’ve come as a society, where morality isn’t defined by reason and logic, but by nine damn justices on a bench, all of whom are chosen by the very people wanting to violate the Constitution?
If so, heaven help us the day our very right to our lives comes up for debate. There’s nothing more depressing than knowing your life is in the hands of a bunch of political thugs.
Or order citizens to purchase...
A treadmill
A GM made electric car
A government education including black studies, woman studies and global warming studies
A tatoo
Carbon credits
Whatever the heck they want
How about ordering the illegals to purchase a bus ticket to Mexico
Or how about ordering citizens to purchase a firearm.
Don't give them ideas.
Not only will half the presently practicing doctors quit, but who will be applying to medical schools to be the docs of the future?
When there’s a conflict between the Congress and the states, or between the Circuits, it is typically resolved at the SCOTUS.
In this case, the Congress, representatives elected by the people of the various states, passed a law that conflicts with a law in VA. The author of the article, VA’s AG, has also asserted (and so far won) that certain of that federally passed law’s provisions are unconstitutional. Constitutional questions are always brought to the SCOTUS.
How we continue to elect Congressmen who pass these laws, and who fail to exercise ‘morality.. defined by reason and logic,’ is another question.
Kagan will probably have to recuse herself. This means that in the event of a 4-4 verdict, the ruling of the lower court stands.
I think this is why Holder wants to appeal. If I have this straight, should DOJ win at the appellate level, that ruling would be upheld by a 4-4 split from SCOTUS. If DOJ agrees to go directly to SCOTUS, a 4-4 ruling would uphold Hudson’s finding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
I hope I have this right.
Yes, that’s right ... and it IS Kagen not Sotomayor. I just cannot separate them in my ‘mind.’
Your post prompted me to do an analysis of the 4th Circ. based on who appointed whom. Slight R advantage, with a couple of cross-overs with Billy Jeff/41 and 43.
It worries me some as it was the 4th Circ, that came out with the Opinion in the Snyder family vs. Westboro/Phelps. Tho, that case is Solomonic given our Constitution and the conflict of rights.
There will be plenty of foreign medical grads from The Bombay School of Medicine and Motel Management to fill the slots. Do not forget also that in the law are provisions for fast tracking minority students into med schools and nurse practitioner programs.
with a specialty in 7-11?
Oh, I worry about who is going to comprise our medical practitioners in the coming decades. Sorry, all the do-gooders can moan and whine about doing it “pro bono populo” but let THEM spend over $100K plus up to 11 years of their lives getting the M.D. and internships/residencies under their belts before they make their first dime. I fear our best and brightest will go into something more profitable, like community organizing.
And don’t forget the Hollywood Upstairs Medical College! Hi, Dr. Nick!
Remember the diversity who bumped Alvin Baake out of medical school? He became an abortionist, who used his suction machine on the side for barbaric botched liposuctions.
Again, I’m no lawyer, but I have heard it said many times that the 4th circuit is one of the most conservative. I hope that means strict constructionist.
I am reasonably optimistic. No way is the individual mandate consistent with the Constitution.
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.