Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cuccinelli Pushing to Fast-Track Lawsuit (to Supreme Court)
nbc28 ^ | Feb 03, 2011 9:51 AM | nbc29

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; bhohealthcare; bhoscotus; cuccinelli; federalism; healthcare; hero; kencuccinelli; lawsuit; obamacare; statesrights; va; virginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-151 next last
To: ml/nj
People are saying that it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to require citizens to buy something.

I'm pretty sure that there was a time when most felt it was unconstitutional for the Federal Government to force the States to buy anything.

Don't forget the waiver issue as well. The idea that one can require citizens to buy, yet set waivers for same is beyond constitutional muster as well.

21 posted on 02/03/2011 7:47:18 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Once again, well done, AG Cuccinelli. Let’s get this matter settled and toss 0bamaCare to the ash heap of history.


22 posted on 02/03/2011 7:49:14 AM PST by ScottinVA (The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Yes; I, too, am almost guessing she won’t. It is, after all, one of the reasons why she was named to the Court.


23 posted on 02/03/2011 7:49:14 AM PST by Miss_Meyet (Every dog has its day. Some days are longer than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy; Matchett-PI
Does the Justice Dept. have to agree to Fast Track?

That depends on whom you ask. According to Senator Schumer, the three branches of government are the executive, house, and senate. In actuality they are the legislative, executive, and judicial. As a separate branch of government, they get to make their own decisions about when they schedule cases and whether to "fast track".

24 posted on 02/03/2011 7:49:33 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

Here’s what needs to happen first to give them more cover:

Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional, But Fight for Repeal Must Continue February 1, 2011
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020111/content/01125106.guest.html

“...So right now Obama’s staff is saying we’re not gonna comply with the federal court’s ruling, which is not unprecedented. They did the same thing during the drilling moratorium in the Gulf. You had another judge there who said, “This ruling’s unconstitutional.” They said, screw it, we’re just gonna keep the moratorium in place, and went out and got a bunch of people to make a statement about it and put their signatures to a lie about the dangers involved.

So how should this be dealt with legally now? Any one of the states involved in a litigation, any one of those 26 states has standing to go back to the court and ask the court to enforce its decision and to ask the court to hold the administration in contempt should it continue to defy the court’s order.

That is the legal option that any of the states, any of those attorney generals have in those 26 states. In fact, if I were an AG for a state, if I were an attorney general, I would take that news article with that quote, this is ABC: “Noting that the judge did not order the government to stop implementing the law, a senior administration source said ‘implementation will proceed at pace.’” I would take that ABC story and this passage and go back to court today with a draft contempt order, and I would ask the court to hold an immediate hearing to determine whether the Obama administration is going to comply with the rule or not. ..”

<>

Some states aren’t waiting, however:

Officials won’t implement health care law (Florida returns loot, Wisconsin pulls the plug)
Bradenton ^ | 2/02/11 | JANET ZINK By JANET ZINK - Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau Updated: Wednesday, Feb. 02, 2011
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2667204/posts


25 posted on 02/03/2011 7:50:14 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Trent Lott on Tea Party candidates: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" 7/19/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CitizenM

The rulings were in Federal court, not state court.


26 posted on 02/03/2011 7:50:33 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Go Ken GO!


27 posted on 02/03/2011 7:51:03 AM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tirednvirginia
The Supremes reached down and grabbed the 2000 election recount fiasco thank goodness so perhaps they will see the necessity on this issue.

The fastest that I remember the Supreme Court reacting was to a federal law prohibiting burning of the flag. The law was passed shortly after the Court ruled against a STATE law prohibiting desecration of the flag.

I think someone burned a flag on the Capitol steps within a few days, so he would be arrested. It went from the district court to the Supreme Court in record time, apparently because the law in question said it had to do so, and that the Court must grant certiorari, and was required to hear it on an expedited basis.

US v. Eichman

28 posted on 02/03/2011 7:53:29 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

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

but of course the lying basxtards


29 posted on 02/03/2011 7:53:48 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
So how should this be dealt with legally now? Any one of the states involved in a litigation, any one of those 26 states has standing to go back to the court and ask the court to enforce its decision and to ask the court to hold the administration in contempt should it continue to defy the court’s order.

Already happened in this instance...

30 posted on 02/03/2011 7:56:28 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

Re my post #25 above, here’s a good example of the sort of thing Rush and Mark Levin are saying should happen to the lawlwss Obama administration regarding Obamacare being ruled unconstitutional, and therefore null and void:

Judge Holds Obama’s Czar in Contempt Over Gulf Drilling Ban
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12827405

The federal judge who struck down the Obama administration’s moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt Wednesday, and ordered the federal agency to pay attorneys’ fees for several offshore oil companies.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman chided the department for its “dismissive conduct” after he overturned the agency’s decision to halt any new permits for deepwater projects and suspend drilling on 33 exploratory wells after the Deepwater Horizon blast, which killed 11 workers and triggered the massive spill.

After Feldman overturned the government’s moratorium in June, the agency issued a second nearly identical suspension.

“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt of this court’s preliminary injunction order,” he wrote.

[snip]bttt


31 posted on 02/03/2011 7:56:50 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Trent Lott on Tea Party candidates: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" 7/19/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
To stop ObamaCare we will have to fast track the appeal process bypassing the intermediate courts.

The Obama administration has already said it is going to ignore the Florida decision. They are going to establish the bureaucracies, collect the fines, and do other things to establish ObamaCare’s supporting infrastructure. Once that happens the infrastructure will remain and continue to function because it is too costly/difficult to dismantle.

Can anyone name a singe governmental infrastructure that has ever been dismantled?

32 posted on 02/03/2011 7:58:11 AM PST by Nip (TANSTAAFL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

We’re crossing posts here... :>)


33 posted on 02/03/2011 7:58:11 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

LOL ! You beat me by just over 20 seconds.


34 posted on 02/03/2011 7:58:22 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Trent Lott on Tea Party candidates: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" 7/19/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CitizenM
If the Health Care bill is ruled "unconstituional" by a state judge, and/or...eventually...the Supreme Court - then would/will it be necessary to hold a vote in the Senate to repeal it?

If the Supreme Court rules the law is unconstitutional, then it's struck. There's no need to hold a vote.

A state judge cannot rule a federal law is unconstitutional. That's the job of a US District Court judge (first), then usually a panel of US Circuit Court judge (second, on appeal), and finally the Supreme Court.

And now...in Florida, since the HC Bill has been proclaimed unconstituional in that state -- should Florida's senators even vote (and have a countable vote)on something that is not applicable in their state? It seems to me that they can hardly approve/support or vote to repeal the bill that has been deemed unconstituional in their own state.

Vinson is a judge in the Northern District of Florida. Currently, his decision only applies to that area. However, since he declined to issue an injunction, there are no penalties if the Obama administration decides to ignore him.

If the legislation is first repealed by Congress (which is unlikely), the FL senators will have the same opportunity to vote on it.

35 posted on 02/03/2011 7:59:56 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
I had a response to my question in another thread regarding the effect that an injunction against enforcement issued by Judge Vinson in Florida would have on the process. The responder stated that though the Judge's decision applied only to his district, an injunction would apply nationwide. How accurate is he?
36 posted on 02/03/2011 8:00:59 AM PST by Tonytitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

The USSC is pretty much compelled to intervene when there are conflicting lower court rulings. So far we have 4 rulings with three different results:

1) The law is Constitutional (x2)
2) The individual mandate is not Constitutional, but the rest of the law may stand
3) The individual mandate is not Constitutional, and the entire law is voided

However, these are District court rulings. Under normal circumstances, the USSC would wait until there are conflicting Circuit court rulings. I just don’t know if these can be considered normal circumstances given the breadth and impact of the law in question.


37 posted on 02/03/2011 8:01:18 AM PST by kevkrom (De-fund Obamacare in 2011, repeal in 2013!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

It’s all that cold air I inhaled yesterday getting dug out from the snow...


38 posted on 02/03/2011 8:03:02 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
Right, sorry...but the question still remains.

I can't understand why any vote is necessary on a bill that our Constitution does not allow and that cannot be legally enforced. It seems to me that it should just be tossed out with no voting necessary.

Holding a vote in the Senate, in essence, signifies that the HC Bill has legal credibility, which it does not. And, for any Senator to vote to keep it would mean that they are openly breaking their pledge to uphold the Constitution, and are imposing illegal mandates on their constituents. In which case, they should be removed from office.

39 posted on 02/03/2011 8:03:07 AM PST by CitizenM (If we ever forget that we're one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.-Ronald Re)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Nip

That’s something any “reform” from the newly awakened (Tea Party) Americans is going to have to concentrate on - dismantling this “infrastructure”.

Unaccountable power to control people attracts leftists like moths to a porch lamp. Time to bust out the lightbulb.


40 posted on 02/03/2011 8:06:15 AM PST by MrB (Tagline suspended for important announcement on my about page. Click my handle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-151 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson