Posted on 02/03/2011 7:25:27 AM PST by 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
You don’t seem to be understanding what I am saying so I will make it more plain for you so that I can be sure that you get my meaning:
I think that the things that you have said about Roberts and Alito are ignorant, stupid, and wrong and that you are being irresponsible by saying them.
I think you should try to help our country instead of acting like a self-important jerk.
Our country didn’t get into the trouble that it is in just because the leftists are crazy and evil. Our problems have also been caused by conservatives who have acted stupidly.
The issue isn't what the judge meant. The issue is the limit of this judge's authority.
There are 94 federal judicial districts. With a few exceptions, they are appointed for life by the current administration. As the administration changes back and forth, you get various ideologies. If a single district judge could affect the entire country, then another district judge could just overrule him.
Remember, we've already had two district judges rule for ObamaCare, and another rule against a portion of ObamaCare. Can you imagine the chaos if the law changed nationwide every time a new ruling was published?
That's the reason for our hierarchical system. It's designed to prevent that kind of chaos.
I'd still rather have someone I can trust as the AG, where he will be certain to have power, over the VP, which I pray will be irrelevant.
And I think you may be delusionary, robotic, and brain washed..
Can't we just get along?.. Maybe not!...
The Bush's all three of them, the Clintoon's, and the Obmanoids seem to be "progressives"..
as well as Karl Rove, Crankhammar, McClame, several Fox anchors.., and Oh!!.. Myth Romney.. and Huckabee..
We will have agree to disagree..
But you must remember I ain't too smart.. I'm a republican..
If any of your friends laughs at you and tells you that you are crazy and stupid then you should believe them.
Huh? This seems like a prescription for chaos. As you have noted, there are competing judgments. Which one is "correct"? The last one?
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.
I don't think it's completely novel, based on the citations. I followed them, and became even more confused because they looked like they might be out of context. See my posting here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2667927/posts?page=99#99
They didn't.
OK, now I have to argue opposite what I've written before, for the sake of clarity: the states are specifically named as "state plaintiffs". How did they become plaintiffs? I thought the rules on venue were supposed to prevent plaintiffs from "forum shopping" except in a limited number of circumstances.
And back to my original question: What exactly does it mean to be a "state plaintiff"? Are there different rules for them, as opposed to "individual plaintiffs"? I understand how the judge ruled that two states had standing, and there was no need to address the others. But, again: how did they circumvent the rules on venue?
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.
And here's where I get lost, again. The judge grants the plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment. Which ones? All of them? It references a document that I haven't read, so maybe that's what expands it to all the states. But, I keep circling back to "how"? If competing district judges can just keep issuing contrary opinions for multiple states, which one do we believe? Why do we need a Supreme Court?
I know you are trying to help, but now I'm even more confused. I've read divergent opinions from people I respect, and I'm having difficulty reconciling them. I'm trying to do my own original research, but it's frustrated by vagueness of it all.
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.
You forgot one more factor: an administration that doesn't care about complying with the principles of law.
“According to [Harvarad Law School grad] Senator Schumer, the three branches of government are the executive, house, and senate.”
Needed to emphasize his Ivy League education, show how smart he is.
Excuse me, but didn’t we learn in elementary school about the three branches of government ?
That's the reason for our hierarchical system. It's designed to prevent that kind of chaos.
Thanks for the explanation, JL. I suppose my view of things is just uncomplicated and straightforward. Obamacare was unconstitutional when it was passed, so of course I want to see it thrown out as soon as possible.
I just bristle against the reality that our legal system is so complicated that it baffles ordinary people, and that things which are clearly in violation of our Constitution require such an incredible assault to undo.
/gripe
I understand what you're saying, but it generally isn't this chaotic. And, when there is occasional chaos, the Circuit Courts will restore order by staying decisions that either create initially or just add to the chaos.
"I don't think it's completely novel, based on the citations."
In an as-applied case, that probably true. But, this is a facial challenge, with sweeping repercussions beyond just the litigants in the case. IOW, the state(s) aren't saying that the fedgov is unconstitutionally applying Obamacare to them, they're saying that the individual mandate is facially unconstitutional. Moreover, the de facto injunction in place of a specif order of injunction, is a bit unusual, because of the scope of the case - not unheard of, but unusual.
"How did they become plaintiffs? I thought the rules on venue were supposed to prevent plaintiffs from "forum shopping" except in a limited number of circumstances."
Remember, this action was initially filed solely by the state of Florida. Other states shortly thereafter, using FRCP Rule 20(a)(1), then filed motion to join the action. Motion was granted, and plaintiffs subsequently added.
Forum shopping rules wouldn't have allowed FL to file the action in another district or circuit where they thought they may enjoy a friendlier jurist.
"And back to my original question: What exactly does it mean to be a "state plaintiff"?"
There are different standing thresholds for states compared to individuals. Without doing some research, I couldn't reliably describe the case law that establishes what precisely those differences are, beyond the fact that there are differences. But, standing was questioned by defendant in this case, and that is an issue that is likely to be reviewed upon appeal. There is a chance the judge could be reversed on that issue alone. I'm not familiar enough with the complexities of a state's standing to accurately predict what chances of reversal may (or may not) be on the issue of standing. There's also the matter of ripeness, but that's another thread, altogether. But, that too could be problematic for plaintiffs on appeal.
"The judge grants the plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment. Which ones? "
Multiple plaintiffs, joined in a single action with one request. It is a single lawsuit, at least in Vinson's court.
"I know you are trying to help, but now I'm even more confused."
Rest assured, you aren't alone. I was having lunch with some colleagues this morning, and confusion on this case was plentiful. And as I mentioned, you had a panel of great legal minds - conservative and liberal - in yesterday's Senate hearings, and none of them would publicly opine about what Vinson's ruling meant for the government moving forward. They said that it was too complicated to speculate, without more research. You have no idea how hard it is for a law professor to admit he doesn't know something.
Every federal district judge in the country could give an opinion upholding OBotcare, a federal law, as constitutional except for one who found OBotcare unconstitutional. The unconstitutional finding would be the binding opinion, the law of the land, that would invalidate the federal law.
The opinion stands until the federal government formally appeals the holding where an appellate court takes the appeal and then rules contrary to the unconstitutional opinion against OBotcare.
This is why the socialists love to go judge shopping. Instead this time, they are the turkeys on the defense trying to hold the line.
They probably didn't opine because they wanted be able to nuance (chickens) the answer.
But as it stands now, a state, a person, a cooperation could ignore the federal government. And if the Feds forcefully tried to impose OBotcare, the defendant should have the supreme confidence he would win in court, if a court would even allow it to go forward on the merits, but I doubt the federal gov would try under the circumstances.
I don't know how closely you follow legal acedemic discussion, but Randy Barnett - one of those who said he didn't know - is hardly "chicken" about anything.
"But as it stands now, a state, a person, a cooperation could ignore the federal government. "
No. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for an automatic 14-day stay following the entry of final judgment. The government has 14-days to file notice of appeal and stay. The opinion is only legally enforceable if stay isn't granted after that 14-day window.
14 days. Well, it is now 10 days. Tic toc... ObamaCare is on the ropes. The mandate to force people to buy heath care is obviously Unconstitutional.
Do you think that will happen here (An order to stay the decision)?
Remember, this action was initially filed solely by the state of Florida. Other states shortly thereafter, using FRCP Rule 20(a)(1), then filed motion to join the action. Motion was granted, and plaintiffs subsequently added.
Thanks, I appreciate this. It gives me something to look up:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule20.htm
Now, I need to read beyond the original text. Do you have any suggestions on something that can explain it to a layman?
There are different standing thresholds for states compared to individuals. Without doing some research, I couldn't reliably describe the case law that establishes what precisely those differences are, beyond the fact that there are differences. But, standing was questioned by defendant in this case, and that is an issue that is likely to be reviewed upon appeal. There is a chance the judge could be reversed on that issue alone.
I noticed that he named two states explicitly, because they had enacted statutes that conflicted with ObamaCare. I wondered if it was appropriate to dispose of the remaining states so handily, if they hadn't enacted similar statutes.
Rest assured, you aren't alone. I was having lunch with some colleagues this morning, and confusion on this case was plentiful.
And they wonder why some don't have respect for the law profession. Of course, in the consulting business -- we have our own "weasel words". :-)
You have no idea how hard it is for a law professor to admit he doesn't know something.
I went to some of my usual sources (constitutional law professors), and those that actually express an opinion disagree. Most won't express a definitive opinion, though. Now, I know why.
Thanks for the tip about how the states were added. I'm still skeptical (because it's ripe for abuse -- all you need is a state to file a suit and pile on), but it gives me a place to start.
I'm sorry, but in order to convince me of this, you're going to have to provide a citation -- or at least an example where it happened.
I don't think that there's anyone who believes a stay wouldn't be granted. But, there is some question about whether or not the government would even seek a stay, and instead would prefer just to ignore Vinson and litigate the other three cases instead. To me, that would be stupid. I think it more likely that they do file notice to appeal and request (and receive) a stay as a result.
"Do you have any suggestions on something that can explain it to a layman?"
Law School :) Seriously, I wouldn't know where to point you. But, it's really not all that complicated, especially in this instance. There were similar litigants, challenging the same statute on the exact same principle(s) of of law - a facial challenge on the statute based on 10th Amendment and Commerce Clause considerations. From a purely practical standpoint, it makes perfect sense for the trial judge to grant petitioner's motions to join the existing action, rather than compelling them to file separately.
"I noticed that he named two states explicitly, because they had enacted statutes that conflicted with ObamaCare."
Right. Standing is at issue here, and the fact that several states had directly conflicting state statutes (conflicting with Obamacare) goes directly to the question of standing. There injury is particularized (in part) because of those state statutes.
It has been 10-days already? Didn't Vinson sign his order just his week, Jan 31st?
I suspect the government will take the weekend to research their position, and then file notice of appeal sometime next week.
The opinion stands until the federal government formally appeals the holding where an appellate court takes the appeal and then rules contrary to the unconstitutional opinion against OBotcare.
If the higher courts refuses to hear the case, it is tantamount to stare decisis as they are letting the lower court ruling stand.
However under our court system, the issue could never end, if people continually challenge the law even after the Supreme Court have ruled on the case. In theory nothing is totally immune from being overturned.
Come on ODH, about 10 days are left on the clock.
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.