High court rejects quick review of health care law (VA)

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has rejected a call from Virginia's attorney general to depart from its usual practice and put review of the health care law on a fast track. Instead, judicial review of President Barack Obama's signature legislation will continue in federal appeals courts.

The justices on Monday turned down a request by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a leading opponent of the law, to resolve questions about its constitutionality quickly. The Obama administration opposed Cuccinelli's plea.

Only rarely, in wartime or a constitutional crisis, does the court step into a legal fight before the issues are aired in appellate courts. Hearings already are scheduled in May and June in three appeals courts.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110425/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_health_care

[annabanana]

1. The implication in this AP report is that the rejection was to be expected.

Anyone got a different take? (MSNBC noted that Kagan didn't recuse herself, which may portend.)

[Yo_Mama]

4. Well if you were an SC justice

Would you want this hot potato?

And is there any real precedent for jumping on this now? I don't think there is. The SC rarely snaps up such cases early - over its entire history there have been very few cases so treated. The Nixon tapes are one of the most famous, but the reason for that was obvious. In WWII they took some, but that was a special circumstance also.

There are challenges to multiple portions of the law, but so far pretty much all the litigation is about what is supposed to happen rather than about what has happened. So it is questionable that Virginia has standing currently. In general standing has to be grounded in stuff that is already happening.

If the SC leaves this alone, there'll be more hard information when they finally have to rule on it. Take severability, even assuming that some portions of the law are struck as unconstitutional. It would be a great advantage to the SC to see how other justices evaluate the question and how things work out in practice in the states. The law is a sweeping change with a tremendous number of moving parts, and right now there is little factual information about how it will work in practice. The regs are being written, the states are organizing, etc.

As for the individual mandate, one can argue that it is now a real issue, but I think the SC will hope to avoid having to rule on it. Probably in vain, but there is a merit in letting cases travel through the court system via the normal route.

There's another possibility, and that is that Ds and Rs in Congress might band together to change some aspects of the individual mandate. It is not clear how well the current funding will work in practice. All the people out there in survival mode, who may have work for two months and then not for six weeks and then some work for seven weeks.... One thing I have never been able to figure out is how those individuals are supposed to come up with the premiums, even subsidized. But there are provisions in the law allowing for a lot of regulations to be written for implementation. Eventually those regulations will become part of the law. It does seem premature to rule on a law which is not completely formed yet.

[spooky3]

8. thanks for explaining this

[dtotire]

2. Supreme Court turns down Virginia’s request to expedite review of health-care law

Source: Washington Post

Supreme Court turns down Virginia’s request to expedite review of health-care law


By Robert Barnes, Monday, April 25, 10:10 AM

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down Virginia’s request that it rule immediately on the constitutionality of the nation’s health-care overhaul.

The decision to reject Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II’s request for expedited review, announced routinely without elaboration or noted dissent, is not surprising. The court rarely takes up issues that have not received a full review in the nation’s appeals courts.


Various challenges to the health-care law championed by the Obama administration and passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress in 2010 are proceeding rapidly. Hearings are scheduled for next month in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, and two other appellate courts will address the issue in June.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-turn-down-virginias-request-to-expedite-review-of-health-care-law/2011/04/15/AFr7U5hE_story.html?hpid=z2


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-turn-down-virginias-request-to-expedite-review-of-health-care-law/2011/04/15/AFr7U5hE_story.html?hpid=z2

[rurallib]

3. They will pull it up and rule against it right in the middle of the campaign

next year.
Of course we all know that the Supremes are above and beyond politics.

[AndyTiedye]

5. That Would Inflict Maximum Damage on the Democrats, So That is Probably What They Would Do

[spooky3]

7. I hope you're wrong. Another possibility is that this suggests that they WON'T object to much of it

Since states and employers are spending a lot of money preparing to comply (allegedly), which would be lost if the SC declared it unconstitutional, and every day that certain people aren't covered, they could potentially be put in life-and-death situations, one could interpret this as suggesting that, if the SC saw that the law, or most of it, was objectionable, they would want to intervene as quickly as possible.

I think the most reasonable interpretation is that they just don't see justification for using an exceptional process in this instance, and they want the wheels to turn as usual, through the usual appeals process.

[spooky3]

6. Hahaha, Kenny boy!

[and-justice-for-all]

9. There is nothing unconstitutional about it...

If I am required to have car insurance and homeowners, then it is not any more unconstitutional to require health insurance. In light of that, along with this requirement there should be a national health service that provides basic coverage and if one wants more insurance, then they are more then able to go out and buy more coverage for a private insurance company.

There is of course a mild tax increase for this NHS, but well worth knowing that your not going to lose your home if you become ill or make a trip to the ER. Most of that cost would be covered, and if you can afford to pay the remainder of the bill then pay it. If not, one would have to make arrangements with the hospital.

[jmowreader]

10. You know the counterargument to this...

You're not "required" to have homeowners or auto insurance, at least not by law. If you don't want to carry auto insurance you are free to not buy a car, and if you don't want to carry homeowners insurance you're free to rent or to pay cash for a house.

The real problem is, if you were to remove the mandate people--including tea party people--like the law. The only way the health insurance companies can afford to pay for all the benefits the law provides is to have everyone get healthcare coverage.

[and-justice-for-all]

13. However the implications of not carring said insurance.(s).

is dire. I would rather carry a minimum of insurance, which I do, rather than take the chance and be completely fucked or screwing some one else for not having insurance. Even if I was renting, I would still have renters insurance which I have in the past, and actually had to file a claim on.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

11. Supreme Court won't speed up Obama healthcare law ruling

Source: Reuters

The Supreme Court refused on Monday to speed up a ruling on President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, his signature domestic achievement that has provoked a fierce political and legal battle.

The justices rejected the state of Virginia's request to invoke a rarely used procedure to bypass the normal appeals process and move quickly to a Supreme Court decision on the law's constitutionality.

More than half the states and many Republicans in Congress have sought to repeal the healthcare law. It dominated political debate in 2009 and galvanized Republicans who warned about its cost and said it was evidence of intrusive government power.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/25/us-usa-healthcare-court-idUSTRE73E46L20110425?WT.tsrc=Social%20Media&WT.z_smid=twtr-reuters_%20com&WT.z_smid_dest=Twitter

[former9thward]

12. This was expected.

The court wants legal arguments developed before it gets to them. Especially since there is a split in the district courts.