Supreme Court has agreed to hear legal challenges to Obama health care law

MSNBC ^ | Nov 14, 2011

[Second Amendment First]

Headline only

[NowApproachingMidnight]

Thank God. Now do the right thing.

[TSgt]

[Second Amendment First]

Supreme Court will hear legal fight over health care overhaul; arguments likely in late March

http://www.nwcn.com/news/national/133804248.html

[onyx]

OBAMACARE ON THE DOCKET

[Dem Guard]

IT IS ABOUT TIME!!!!!!

[Java4Jay]

Should be a slam dunk NO.. it's unconstitutional.

[TSgt]

I hope they broadcast the audio like they did the Second Amendment arguments.

[onyx]

FReepathon Day 45 ... Please Contribute!

FReepathon Day 45 ... Please Contribute!

[Second Amendment First]

Thanks onyx: That means arguments could come in March, allowing plenty of time for a decision in late June, just over four months before Election Day.

[onyx]

WOO-HOO!

[Pecos]

I agree with your judgement from a legal point of view, but “Should be” and “gonna happen anyway” sometimes seem to be on different planets, when viewed from inside the Beltway.

[NonValueAdded]

I hope this doesn’t mean they were waiting on that decision from the DC Circuit. I think the solution will lie not within the Supreme Court but rather in the 2012 election and subsequent repeal. And it is time to reign in the Commerce Clause with a limiting amendment.

[vette6387]

According to Judge Napolitano on Fox Business just now, the SCOTUS DID NOT AGREE TO HEAR THE OBAMACARE CASE! But rather it has agreed to hear whether or not those bringing the case “HAVE THE STANDING TO DO SO!”
Personally, I think we need to impeach all of these a$$holes! The country is burning and they continue to fiddle! They are a total disgrace to this nation, every last one of them. They all need to be replaced.

[CedarDave]

Mark Levin had comments on the DC appeals court decision last week and how the Reagan-appointed judge agreed with the Rat-appointed judge that the law is constitutional. He said his Landmark Legal Foundation would be filing a brief detailing where the judge got it wrong.

Here is Mark's link to an explanation from the Washington Examiner:
D.C. federal appeals court upholds Obamacare; no impact on SCOTUS case

[Terry Mross]

If the SC rules in favor of obama, it hands him the election. Of course, I’m about 90% convinced it’s all rigged anyway.

And by the way, I don’t hold out much hope with the SC. We the people allowed this all to go too far decades ago when we fell in love with our congressman for bringing home the pork.

[Truth29]

"According to Judge Napolitano on Fox Business just now, the SCOTUS DID NOT AGREE TO HEAR THE OBAMACARE CASE! But rather it has agreed to hear whether or not those bringing the case “HAVE THE STANDING TO DO SO!”

This is a really important point. If they rule against standing, then the whole process would have to start over and drag out for more years. Much like the many rulings against Obama's NBC status, this would be a strategy to not rule on the issue.

[apastron]

They need to issue an injunction right now. Damage is being done - right now.

[Dengar01]

Fox News has the ugliest lesbian on TV right now can I sue for emotional distress?

[Founding Father]

This is incorrect. SCOTUS will decide the constitutionality of the law.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/court-sets-5-12-hour-hearing-on-health-care/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scotusblog%2FpFXs+%28SCOTUSblog%29

This is easily the best website for all things supreme.