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 ...
“politics at that level trumps all”
This is our biggest problem.
reject the whole damnable law.
For the Court to grant cert, only four affirmative votes are required - in fact, attorneys call it the "Rule of Four". If it was a "political" decision, it would easily catch a grant. The Court, contrary to popular opinion, just doesn't operate like that - politically.
There are in fact several well-founded legal reasons why the Court won't hear the case in an expedited manner. The author names one or two, I named one (ripeness) and there are several others that are entirely too complicated to explain in a forum like this, without writing a short book.
If you're interested, Kevin Walsh, a former Scalia clerk and current Asst. Professor at Virginia, makes his case why the particular Old Dominion case is (likely) fatefully flawed.
I also personally think Virginia's case has problems, some that Walsh outlines, and some others. I predict it won't be heard this week and that ultimately the Florida case will be litigated long before Virginia's is settled.
Different case. That was the FL case, which is pending appeal in the 11th Circuit.
The VA case was appealed to the 4th Circuit almost immediately and was granted expedited appellate review and docketed for the first week in May, or so. In the interim, VA made an application for expedited cert to the Court. It's that application that is currently pending in the Court.
Yes sir. You are a patriot.
I hope I’m wrong but the pressure cooker is getting ready to blow!
Keep your powder dry, friend
They could take the appeal directly from the District Court, but they most definately won't. They will, however, take the case after the 4th Circuit decides the appeal. And they will probably join or consolidate the Virgina case with the eventual appeal of the Florida case from a future decision 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
If they do not take the case does vinson’s verdict stand?
What happens if the appeals court sides with the Florida judge and the supreme court refuses to hear the case? Does that mean we win?
No, it would mean the Federal Government would then appeal to the Supreme Court.
It depends. If they take VA v. Sibelius, now and decide it narrowly and against plaintiff, then the FL case will continue to be litigated because a) They're different litigants and b)They're cases on (slightly) different matters of law. If, however, they take the case and find for plaintiffs, then of course, the FL will likely be mooted.
There is, of course, the complicating issue of severability. I believe that in the VA case, the district court decision leaves the possibility that the Court can find that the unconstitutional provisions can be severed from the entire statute without nullifying the entire Act. The FL court judged explicitly ruled differently (I think for good reason) that the constitutional infirmities cannot be severed from the Act. Depending on how the Court sees it, and makes their opinion, there is a remote chance that the FL could continue to be litigated even if the Court finds some constitutional infirmity in the law in the VA case.
It's a bit confusing, but that's it in simplified nutshell.
As I said in an earlier post, the FL case, for a variety of reasons, is a bit cleaner and probably lends itself better to examination by the Court. Plus, the 11th Circuit works just as quickly as the 4th, so I think the time frame works well too.
down is up and up is down, night is day and day is night, black is sometimes white and white is sometimes black but both are usually some shade of grey, depending upon how it fits our personal political agenda
If the 4th Circuit affirms Vinson, the government will appeal the case and that appeal will unquestionably be heard by the Court.
If they do not take this case then I will bet my last dollar that they will never take Obumbo’s eligability case, never, under any circumstances. I don’t give a damn if you got his African BC or proof of any kind.
The SC will not want to kick open the hornets nest because of the legal ramifications of an illegitimate prez. In other words they are chicken $hit$.
Obama has threatened to take action against those states that haven't yet begun to implement Abominablecare. The costs and harm don't start in two years--they are immediate.
I appreciate your insight - I like reading posts where I learn something.
I'd be willing to bet that this, more than anything else, is why expidtied review of the VA case will be denied. The FL case is the more comprehensive and wide-sweeping ruling, and I think the USSC will wait for that one to land in their laps before moving on the subject at all.
The Supreme Court would not approve Obaba’s Cr*pcare?
Two words: Dredd Scott
I'm sure VA has made that argument. I'm just saying that it's unlikely that the Court will find it persuasive, or at least persuasive enough to circumvent the normal appellate process, especially when that "normal" appellate process has already been expedited.
You’re not alone. There are hundreds of thousands of folks. Just as determined. Just not as vocal.
Each and every one will be counted soon.
With unions, judges, dem party, commies, president, all trying to destroy the USA, the reset button is predictable, the question is when.
Regards
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.