Cuccinelli Pushing to Fast-Track Lawsuit (to Supreme Court)

nbc28 ^ | Feb 03, 2011 9:51 AM | nbc29

[Matchett-PI]

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) will push to fast-track Virginia's challenge of the federal health care overhaul to the nation's highest court.

Cuccinelli said the uncertainty caused by various court rulings about the constitutionality of the health care law makes expedited review a necessity.

"Currently, state governments and private businesses are being forced to expend enormous amounts of resources to prepare to implement a law that, in the end, may be declared unconstitutional," he said in a statement. "Regardless of whether you believe the law is constitutional or not, we should all agree that a prompt resolution of this issue is in everyone's best interest."

In December, a federal judge in Richmond ruled portions of President Barack Obama's health care plan unconstitutional. Another judge, this one in Florida, ruled Monday that the entire law is unconstitutional. Two other courts have upheld the act.

Virginia's lawsuit is scheduled for hearings in an appellate court this spring. But Cuccinelli's petition seeks to leap-frog that process to take his case directly to the Supreme Court. It is a highly unusual move, and one the court rarely grants.

"We did not make this decision lightly," Cuccinelli said.

The Justice Department has said it does not support putting the court battle on the fast track

[Raycpa]

Q1=Yes
Q2=No

[justlurking]

I have to ask - Why then would 26 states be involved in a lawsuit that would serve them no purpose?

I believe it's because they felt if they combined their efforts in a friendly district, they would have a better chance of succeeding and setting a precedent that would make it to the Supreme Court.

It cannot exist in one district and not another.

Yes, it can. I can cite cases where that's true, because the US government declined to appeal, apparently because they didn't want to risk widening the scope of the decision.

Look up US vs. Rock Island Armory.

[hosepipe]

[ I don't know what Roberts and Alito have done to justify you busting on them. ]

I am suspicious of Bush... he smells like a "progressive"...
and acts like a stealth democrat...

[Political Junkie Too]

Is it wise for Cuccinelli to be pushing for the fast-track? It was the Florida case, not the Virginia case, that found the entire law unconstitutional. The Virginia case only struck down some provisions.

What would happen if the Supreme Court chose to hear the Virginia case instead of the Florida case, which threw out the entire law?

-PJ

[justlurking]

I beg to differ. Vinson is a federal judge, and has ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional. The law cannot be unconstitutional for just one district of the country. If it's unconstitutional, then it's dead for the entire US.

Sorry, but it's not true.

Look up US v. Rock Island Armory. A section of NFA '34 was declared unconstitutional, and the government did not appeal because they didn't want to widen the scope of the decision.

His ruling is also unequivocal that the federal government is henceforth enjoined from implementing Obamacare, unless, and until a higher court rules differently.

The judge believes that a declaratory judgment was enough. But, without an injunction (which he explicitly denied), there are no apparent penalties for ignoring him.

[bbernard]

What about Florida and the other states? DO they plan to do the same?

[justlurking]

That's not entirely accurate. It's enforceable law on the litigants party to the case - in this instance, the federal government and all 26 states. However, it - as a district Court decision - is only binding precedent in that District Court. In fact, other District courts in the same Circuit are not bound by Vinson's opinion. To them, and to all other District Courts, Vinson's opinion would be seen as persuasive, non-binding opinion.

Ah, finally! Someone that can do more than repeat talking points. :-)

I understand the concept of binding precedent, although I didn't explain it very well. But, I don't understand how it can be enforceable law outside the district. It runs contrary to everything I've read about jurisdiction and venue.

How did the other states become party to the suit? I know about consolidation of multiple districts for pretrial proceedings, but that is supposed to push the actions back to their originating district courts. Would you point me to something authoritative that explains how this works?

I've also been trying to find the difference between declaratory judgments and injunctions, and despite all the claims (and citation) they are the effectively the same, they don't seem to be. Penalties for non-compliance is the big difference.

What makes it so confusing? There are two other existing District Court opinions that came to the exact opposite conclusion on the exact same question of law, and on the exact same federal statute.

This is what I thought was the exact reason for the rules about jurisdiction, venue, and scope. With 98 (?) districts and 12 circuits, you can't expect them all to agree all the time, and that's why we have the hierarchical system.

Of course, I think it's unrealistic to expect the Obama administration to comply with the ruling only in part of the country (whatever part that might be allowed). But, I wouldn't be surprised if they try.

[Caipirabob]

Thanks Justlurking, I’ll go check that out. Uhng, I want this thing tossed so bad...

[Bobby_Taxpayer]

The Justice Department has said it does not support putting the court battle on the fast track"

Of course they don't. Delay works to their advantage so they can implements regulations while it drags out. There are already around 30 states joined in one of the 4 court cases. IF...the number could or can grow to 38, that is 3 forths of the states, enought to amend the constitution.

[Caipirabob]

Thanks for answering these posts with facts while emotions are flying high...cheers!

[rogue yam]

I am suspicious of Bush... he smells like a "progressive"...

I didn't support GWB during the 2000 GOP Primary and there was much he did in office that I disagreed with.

That said, Roberts and Alito were great picks who will be with us for a long time, God willing.

I think it is important to recognize quality and appreciate accomplishment. Mindless cynicism only helps the evil ones.

[Windflier]

Well, even from the moment that Judge Vinson's ruling was made public, it was apparent that this thing would have to be fought all the way to the Supreme Court. No surprise there.

But in my view, our system of jurisprudence has become complicated beyond all redemption, when ordinary citizens can't have confidence in such a clear and unambiguous ruling by a federal judge. In other words, "unconstitutional" doesn't necessarily mean "unconstitutional" in our modern world.

Thanks to lawyers and leftists, the law means anything the ruling oligarchy wants it to mean. And they wonder why there's a Tea Party.

[Matchett-PI]

"What would happen if the Supreme Court chose to hear the Virginia case instead of the Florida case, which threw out the entire law?"

The Florida ruling takes presidence over all the others. as it was ruled to be UNconstitutional.

[hosepipe]

[ I didn't support GWB during the 2000 GOP Primary and there was much he did in office that I disagreed with. ]

Me too... I am suspicious of him still.. McClame has the same stink on him..

[Matchett-PI]

"What about Florida and the other states? DO they plan to do the same?"

I don't know as any others would need to at this point.

[Political Junkie Too]

Then why is Virginia pushing to fast-track? Is their case moot in deference to the Florida ruling, which is more sweeping in its finding?

-PJ

[Matchett-PI]

"Then why is Virginia pushing to fast-track?"

I don't know the ins and outs of it, but I think Cuccinelli is a good friend of Mark Levin. Hee hee hee

[mwl8787]

I keep saying that this guy is going to make a great AG for President Palin.

You are thinking too small. Cuccinelli is on the short list as VP for almost every GOP presidential candidate. He would fire up the conservative base in a New York minute.

[OldDeckHand]

"But, I don't understand how it can be enforceable law outside the district."

District Court judges can enjoin the federal government, nationally. Just a few weeks ago, a District Court judge somewhere found that DADT was unconstitutional (that's the declaratory judgment), and then enjoined the government from enforcing the DADT anywhere and not just against the plaintiff in that case (that's injunctive relief). That injunctive relief did not withstand appellate review (but as a theoretical matter, it could have), at least not in the short-term. A stay was granted, I believe by the 9th Circuit (could be wrong).

What makes this case so odd, is the novel approach Vinson took when he asserted a de facto injunction, based entirely on the premise that there's a presumption the federal government will abide by the declaratory judgment. The problem is which declaratory judgment? The one Vinson issued, or the two others that reached entirely opposite opinions?

"How did the other states become party to the suit?"

They didn't. But, Vinson argues that his declamatory judgment in this facial challenge is a de facto injunction on the federal government prohibiting them from implementing Obamacare anywhere, not just in the states party to the litigation. Unlike another poster, I don't believe it accurate to say that Vinson's ruling then prohibits the government from defending themselves in similar lawsuits (if they either exist now, or in the future) with other states not party to this particular suit. It wouldn't.

The government is only bound by the decision (from a litigation standpoint) with these particular plaintiffs on this particular question of law. That's it.

Like I said, this is an incredibly unique case, not just because of the principles of law at question, but the fact that we have competing civil cases against the same unique defendant (fedgov), brought by multiple states and relatively simultaneously.

[KansasGirl]

[My only fear is that the SCOTUS may punk out and not kill it. But then again, that would keep the issue alive.]

I’m confindent they will kill it. 27 states are suing on the basis that it is unconstitutional. The U.S. House repealed it with a large majority. 47 U.S. Senators voted to repeal it. A majority of U.S. citizens want it repealed. IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! I really think they will reaffirm the FL federal judges decision in a 5-4 vote.