Posted on 04/14/2011 3:39:00 PM PDT by prairiebreeze
When the U.S. Supreme Court is in session, each Wednesday and Friday afternoon is set aside for an esoteric conclave known as the Justices' Conference. During these private meetings, the justices discuss cases they have recently heard or might decide to hear. The first order of business usually involves the latter, requests from various litigants for the high court to review cases that have been adjudicated by lower courts. Typically, these cases have already been through the appellate process, but occasionally the justices receive a "petition for certiorari before judgment" asking them to consider the decision of some District Court before it has been reviewed by a Court of Appeals. Friday's conference schedule includes consideration of one such petition, filed pursuant to Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius.
The Virginia case was, of course, the first legal challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in which the Department of Justice (DOJ) received a major defeat. Last December, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional limits by including a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance in the health care "reform" law. Shortly following this ruling, the Obama DOJ filed an appeal in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, but Virginia Attorney
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
If they don’t take this case, they should shut themselves down.
This is the most blatantly unconstitutional law encacted in decades and millions of lives hang in the balance.
LLS
I don’t know why the judge in that cartoon should be surprised. “Constitutional Law” is code for “Squinting at the Constitution in such a way as to see things that aren’t there.” If one limited oneself to what the Constitution actually said, rather than what people have over the years pretended that it means, “Constitutional Law” wouldn’t even fill a whole semester.
Are you insane? The law is being enacted as we speak affecting the vast majority of people in this country. It the virtual definition of “exigent circumstances”.
Yes, I'm pretty sure I'm not insane. I do however, have at least a rudimentary understanding about how the Court works, to include why and when it elects to hear cases before judgement in a lower appellate court is entered.
As I said, this is a facial challenge to a statute that is based centrally on a provision of the statute that won't be enforceable for another two years. That's why there - from a legal standpoint - is no immediate (which is part of the requisite standard) harm in not hearing the case in an expedited manner.
I just love lawyer talk. Logic goes out the window most of the time. Get real, this thing is costing us all and needs to be stopped in it’s tracks now.
Yep!
If only they had won the case because "this thing is costing us". Unfortunately, that wasn't the central element of the case - of any of the cases that have been brought so far, was it?
Courts have rules they follow. Conservatives think that those rules SHOULD be followed, irrespective of political expediency or desire. Liberals are the ones who tear up the rules to get the political outcome they desire.
You might want to keep that in mind.
If the people are denied by the scotus, then it is time to take to the streets!
The scotus works for us and thier oath is to the constitution.
In the end, we are the ones who enforce the costitution, The founders gave us the second amendment for that purpose.
Do we have the nuts?
PERFECT! Wish we could get that one posted throughout the halls of DC.
“I do however, have at least a rudimentary understanding about how the Court works...
No, I dont’ think you do.
“won’t be enforceable for another two years.”
Whether or not it’s “enforceable” or not for 2 years is irrelevant. The fact that immediate action is required lest serious and likely irreperable HARM (finacial and otherwise) could and likely would occur if expediated judgment is not considered most certainly is.
We will see early next week. I wouldn't hold your breath.
I don’t disagree that your conclusion is valid....only that the reasoning for that conclusion is flawed.
In other words, regardless of a reasonable judgement of Judicial neccessity, politics at that level trumps all.
“Shortly following this ruling, the Obama DOJ filed an appeal in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, but Virginia Attorney”
They forgot to mention that O’s first tactic was to completely ignore that judges ruling. The judge then force O to file an appeal.
I, Sir, have the *nuts*.....and will stand with you. And everyone else who is willing to make a stand.
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.