Posted on 09/27/2011 6:40:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Remember that 11th Circuit decision last month striking down the mandate? That ruling was issued by a standard three-judge panel; today was the deadline for the DOJ to decide whether to seek a rehearing of the case by the entire 11th Circuit. If they sought a rehearing, it would take months to draft the briefs, hold oral arguments, and then deliver a decision, which would all but guarantee that the Supreme Court wouldn’t take up the issue and render its own decision until after the election. If they declined to seek a rehearing, then they could appeal to the Supreme Court soon and have a landmark SCOTUS ruling on the mandate by election day next year.
Their choice: No rehearing. Next stop, the Supreme Court. Gird your loins.
But former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, who has worked on briefs in support of the legislation, said the move should be read as a sign of confidence from the administration.
“This confirms what I had already concluded: That the government is confident that it’s going to prevail in the Supreme Court and would like to have a decision sooner rather than later,” Dellinger told POLITICO…
There are only five judges appointed by Democrats on the 11-judge circuit, and one them has already ruled to strike down the mandate. So far, many judges have ruled along the party lines of the president who nominated him or her. So it’s unlikely the government would have gotten a better response out of the full panel.
Good catch by Politico: The deck was stacked against the White House in the rehearing, so why risk absorbing an unnecessary blow by having a full panel of the 11th Circuit rule against them? On the other hand, Tom Maguire made the case this morning for why a Supreme Court ruling before the election would be a very bad idea for The One:
Obamacare does not poll well and Republicans will be campaigning on its repeal whatever the Supremes decide. And (just thinking out loud here) Obama might actually benefit from a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare, since it would give him an excuse to give the people what they want. Put another way, if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare it will be obvious that the only way to end it is to end Obama’s reign…
Delay is the only sensible choice for them. The strategic bet is that some of the folks who don’t like ObamaCare will figure that the courts will end it, and they will vote Democratic for other reasons. A Supreme Cout ruling against ObamaCare will energize Republicans; a Supreme Court ruling in its favor will double-energize them.
Interesting point, but having a conservative Court uphold the mandate would be a huge psychological boost for Obama and the left and might even help legitimize the program to independents who have been lukewarm about it until now. Don’t forget either that the White House is expecting Romney to be the GOP nominee. Even if grassroots conservatives feel energized by the Court decision, how jacked up can they be to replace Obama with … the architect of RomneyCare, who did more than anyone else until The One himself to introduce health-care mandates to America?
What I can’t figure out, though, is why O would run the risk of the mandate being struck down before the election. That would be demoralizing for the left and delegitimizing for Obama. What’s left of his first term if his signature domestic policy “achievement” ends up rubbished by SCOTUS as a violation of the Commerce Clause? I guess the thinking is that if the mandate is struck down, he can point to it as proof for liberals that they desperately need to appoint more left-wing justices to the Court and the only way to do that is to re-elect him. But even so, Obama’s not the kind of guy who wants to deal with X factors in the middle of the campaign: That’s why the Bush tax cuts were extended until after election day and why he insisted on a debt-ceiling deal that would carry through past November of next year. Now suddenly, by bypassing the 11th Circuit rehearing, he’s risking the Court dropping a flaming bag of shinola on his doorstep four months before the polls open. He must be awwwwwwfully confident that he’s going to win.
It will all boil down in the end to ONE MAN by the name of Anthony McLeod Kennedy, and it will all depend on which side of the bed he happens to wake up on in the morning.
This is what this nation has come to.
You heard it here first.
Voting IS "democratic"...democrats are not!
Good. An en banc hearing would likely have been either denied or lower ruling upheld anyway. SCOTUS needs to hear oral arguments by Spring at the latest.
Time to pray like never before countrymen.
and if Obama is opting to skip the further appeals and go straight to SCOTUS, the plan to flip Kennedy must be firmly in place.
They must know which way Kennedy is leaning.
My bottom line is it ain't over until we drive this guy out of the White House....and I wish they didn't rule before the elction to still give us the issue to beat him with.
Not at all. The 11th Circuit is very conservative. They could not have won. I do not think Kennedy would say that Congress was in bounds here with this law.
Unless, of course, the 0 administration knows that there will soon be a vacancy on the court and that he will have a chance to change the odds.
Thanks for posing this article.
Socialized Medicine, such as obama “care” is an attempt by cash-starved politicians to diminish competition and eventually create a government-run monopoly.
The proponents of Socialized Medicine are returning our once Free Republic to the European-style Feudalism that our ancestors abhorred so much.
Obama”care” violates the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law because it reduces competition, among other legal tests. Obama”care” also violates the US Constitution because it is a mandatory tax that forces us at the point of a gun to buy something ( Insurance Policy ) that we do not freely choose to buy.
Will THE NINE SUPREMES consider the Anti-Trust violations of obama”care” ?
That’s what I figure too. Kennedy may have already have been bought.We already know how the two Dykes will vote, and Ginsberg and Breyer are an Obama Gimme.
Kennedy is probably in the catbird’s seat, and Obama must feel he has him in his hand.
If the justices vote that the Government can force Americans to buy something whether they want to or not, we can just throw the Constitution in the toilet.
Another consideration for why 0 may be expediting a SCOTUS ruling:
If the court hears the case next year, 0’s justice department will defend it.
If 0 loses next November (a distinct possibility that they must recognize) a new Republican justice department would be charged with defending a law that the new President will oppose.
In this scenario, Obamacare faces better odds the sooner it is heard by SCOTUS.
Yes, I wonder if it is not that a Supreme will resign soon and Obama gets to select another.
Lord help us.
ok.
Honestly, I am surprised at how many of you can think of a Justice being bought! Really? A Justice will be around long after an administration. What could Obama offer a Justice anyway? Justices are an equal branch of government, and, seemingly, more powerful than presidents from what history shows.
Fantasy. It would sink Obummer. Nobody wants DeathCare to begin with, and this would just confirm in one more way that the country rejects it. Obama's ways are not our ways.
“It will all boil down in the end to ONE MAN by the name of Anthony McLeod Kennedy, and it will all depend on which side of the bed he happens to wake up on in the morning.
This is what this nation has come to.
You heard it here first.”
Your prediction will prove to be prescient.
And, in response, I’d like to pose some serious questions:
If this is the case, then why do we really need “A Supreme Court” at all?
Is this how a “free people” of independent citizens should be governed?
Just wonderin’....
“It will all boil down in the end to ONE MAN by the name of Anthony McLeod Kennedy, and it will all depend on which side of the bed he happens to wake up on in the morning.”
You are absolutely correct. In that respect Kennedy may very well be the most important traffic cop in the country ultimately deciding what legislation will go into effect and what will not.
Methinks the fix is in?
nobamacare will have to be dismantled by the next administration. It will peel like an onion.
I think the decision by the Dems not to play stall ball on an eventual Supreme Court decision until after the election is politically unwise in light of the fact that Justice Kagan who was heavily involved in the legal aspects of Obamacare prior to being selected for the SC may have to recuse herself. If that were the case the administration would be handicapped with only 3 clear liberal votes that they can count on.
When is the last time a liberal did the honest thing?
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.