Posted on 03/15/2011 5:10:30 PM PDT by PROCON
Senator Schumer is pretty sure that the Supreme Court is not one of the equal but separate branches of government, so as such it’s possible that Chuck’s advised the White House that they have the power to tell the Supreme Court what to do:
The Obama administration told the Supreme Court on Monday night it should stay away from a high-profile challenge to the 2010 health care law until after a lower court has had a chance to review the case.
Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal wrote, “there is no basis for short-circuiting the normal course of appellate review.” Katyal also says Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s case is problematic because he may lack sufficient standing to challenge the health care law. [...] In his filing last month, Cuccinelli said there’s a “palpable consensus” that the high court will ultimately have to pass judgment on the merits of President Obama’s health care law and should do so without delay. Furthermore, Cuccinelli argues that his case involves “pure issues of constitutional law” that appellate judges on the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will be unable to definitively resolve. Team Obama has said they’re absolutely convinced of the health care law’s constitutionality, so with that in mind wouldn’t you think they’d welcome a fast-track opinion on the law and ultimate thumbs-up from the Supreme Court?
Two things...First, the USSC has Original Jurisdiction just about any time they wish. They use it VERY "judiciously". Look to see a decision, oh, about July, 2012. Perfect.
Second, these man are too decent and "judicious" to allow the passions of the day dictate when/where they will consider an issue of law.
Look for a decision, oh, about July 2012.
Perfect!
bookmark
Can you imagine if Bush had said this?
I posted this under News/Activism, someone must have bumped it to Breaking and the mods left it...don't SCHIP me, Bro!..:=)
This has absolutely nothing to do with the separation of powers. The administration is a party to a lawsuit. The opposing side filed a brief requesting expedited appeal to the Supreme Court. The administration filed a brief opposing that request. That’s all that happened here.
Hussein is one uppity usurper.
He knows his abomination is going down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pB5uR3zgsA
Check out the 00:16 mark.
Enjoy.
LOL. Funny ping
Graphic archived. Beautiful! It only lacks the ‘no. 1’ salute, but that keeps it ‘G’ rated.
Recall, however, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. If we don't consent, they have no power.
If this is implemneted, I forsee raids on Government pharmacies just for starters--for antibiotics, blood pressure meds, insulin, and the like, not the common abusable drugs with current street value.
Mr President: Keep your mandates off my prostates.
>I suspect he told them after his second oath what they would be allowed to touch and do.
Or was the second oath really an Oath of Fealty to Obama by that Justice?
Yep.
He’s a constitutional scholar, for real, that’s what is said about him. He could care less about the constitution, ours, not his, he does not believe in it.
If the WH is telling the USSC not to take a case or to rule in its favor, then it most certainly is a breach of separation of powers.
FDR was in breach of this simply by asking the USSC to inform him of how it would rule on some of the acts he was going to push.
Using your position as chief executive to “warn” the USSC what cases they should and should not take or what the outcome should be outside of the legal briefs is clearly a breach.
“Very disappointed . . .”
So am I.
Considering the courts lack of action over the BC issue my money says our very corrupt SCOTUS will listen to the WhoreHouse and NOT take up the Obiecare Bill.
The whole system smells of rotting fish.
Having original jurisdiction does not mean that Scotus MUST take up a case; it means they CAN take up a case.
They might just want the lower courts to do all the leg work on it before they get hold of it.
Is ObamaCare constitutional?
Heck, I don’t think car seat requirements for children is constitutional, so you know I don’t think forcing me to buy insurance is constitutional.
I think the issue at the Scotus will end up being whether or not the required purchase part is severable with the remainder being intact EVEN in the case when Congress doesn’t specifically say so.
IOW, are constitutional parts still active if unconstitutional parts are excised?
That would kill the funding of ObamaCare, but some of the straphanger provisions would last: 26 year old on parents’ care provision, pre-existing condition provision, and the unrelated to healthcare provisions. jmho
the POSOTUS has done nothing but work on his prime project of totally destroying America
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.