Posted on 03/14/2011 10:06:56 PM PDT by Citizen X_Area 51
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
The case referred to in the article is the Virginia case, not the Florida case. If I understand it correctly, both Virginia and Oklahoma filed suits separately from the other 25 or so states that received a ruling from the judge in Florida.
The case that has the best potential to shut down the entire health care law, imo, is the one where the Florida federal judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional.
The other cases, including the Virginia and Oklahoma cases, seem to be “sideshows”, and were perhaps ill-advised. But, I’m not a constitutional lawyer, so I could be missing something.
This "sufficient standing" crap I find extremely annoying. It shouldn't matter whether you're being personally harmed by an unconstitutional law. All it should require is that the plaintiff/s show evidence that it might be unconstitutional.
Hey SCOTUS... YOU BETTER DAMN WELL PUT YOUR FOOT DOWN ON THIS ONE!
YOU KNOW DARN WELL WHAT HE IS DOING!
Pretty soon, this nation is going to stop complaining about Obama, and attention is going to be directed towards you and all the other cowards that are allowing this usurper to make a mockery out of this nation!
MAN UP !
well, let’s not forget, he is a constitutional scholar /s
That headline is grossly misleading, and it’s clear a number of folks didn’t follow the link or don’t know what the actual issue is. The Administration’s brief is opposing EXPEDITING the VA AG’s challenge, not the case itself. They will do that later.
Sure, they are hoping to stall and delay in the hope that a Republican-appointed Justice may retire or God forbid, die. Or maybe they hope that popular opinion will chanage Or that the law’s implementation will be too far advanced to reverse by the time it’s taken up in the normal course of legal maneuverings.
But this particular brief is what the Solicitor General is supposed to do, and what Solicitors General have done for untold cases through every Administration. And it is NOT telling the Court to stay away from health care. It is responding only to a petition to expedite the VA case being heard.
Once ObamaCare's been implemented at a large scale the court will naturally take that into account.
He's hopes to delay the decision because he knows there's a reasonable chance the court will not go his way. If he were confident in his position, he'd encourage SCOTUS to decide on constitutionality on a fast track basis.
Dragging this out is NOT in the nation's best interest but it IS in Obama's.
I was gonna say, thats kinda balsey. Sounds like a challenge. Not that I think this court has balls. I don’t. If they did, they would take up the citizenshop/qualification issue. But chickens***s are ducking that too.
I don’t trust SCOTUS anymore. Do you?
LOL! Say what? Bammy and his sidekick, that moron Holder, need to go.
The Supreme Court has Original Jurisdiction on this case. It should never have been brought before the lower courts in the first place. Under the Constitution the Supreme Court is the ONLY court that has any business reviewing this law.
Hussein thinks he is Caesar.
Obama has no legal authority over SCOTUS.
Listen up. Roberts tucked tail and ran when eligibility was first brought up. Then he tucked tail again when the illegality of taking over GM and screwing over the shareholders was brought up.
Robert and the rest of the court are a bunch of cowards who are hiding behind their skirts as America is being destroyed.
SCOTUS CAN take a case away from the Appeals Court if it feels that it is of sufficient national necessity. And, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” [Marbury v. Madison].
The doctrine of standing is JUST that, a doctrine [not law] that SCOTUS NORMALLY uses as an administrative procedure to keep the docket from getting clogged up ...
“What’s Arabic for chutzpah?”
That was my first thought. Whatever it is, they have it in spades.
It’s good to “see” you! ;o)
You guys should GFY.
The Supreme court decides what cases to take and when.
Besides, who you gonna appeal to after you lose? The UN? LOL
The Great Dictator ....
DITTO! DITTO TO THE 100TH POWER!
I’m SURE the good ones CAN’T WAIT to see it come before them...
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.