SCOTUS rejects fast-tracking of hearing on Obamacare


Justice is supposed to be blind. We’ll eventually see if she really is.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take on Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s request to expedite a hearing on Obamacare. Instead SCOTUS ruled it can move up through “normal channels.” Cuccinelli had hoped to bypass Richmond’s Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals with the assertion the issue of the controversial Obamacare is one that needs immediate attention. This is the second time SCOTUS has turned down a request by opponents of Obamacare.

Cuccinelli stated he will abide by SCOTUS decision and await The Fourth Circuit’s hearing of oral arguments on May 10 before a 3-judge panel. A disappointed Cuccinelli had his to say:

“Asking the court to expedite our lawsuit was about removing this crippling and costly uncertainty as quickly as possible. … The Supreme Court rarely expedites cases under its Rule 11. Expediting our case would have been the exception and so, although disappointing, this is not surprising,” he said in a statement Monday. “This case’s logical end point is the Supreme Court. It will simply have to make its way through the Fourth Circuit first.”

It’s no secret of course Mr. Obama didn’t want SCOTUS to have a hearing and Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal told the court, “there is no basis for short-circuiting the normal course of appellate review.” Katyal also stated there is obviously a lot of public interest in the issue however it’s not:

“one of the rare cases that justifies deviation from normal appellate practice and require[s] immediate determination in this court.”

SCOTUS did fast-track hearing Bush v. Gore in 2000 since it was an issue that required “immediate determination.”

Back in December federal Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond ruled a key provision of Obamacare violated the Congressional Commerce Clause i.e. that the government cannot force anyone to “buy” a product, namely insurance required by Obamacare. Part of Hudson’s 42-page ruling stated:

“Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”

Mr. Obama promptly appealed.

Back in January a second federal judge, Judge Roger Vinson of the federal district court in Pensacola, Florida ruled the individual mandate clause was so “inextricably bound” to other portions of the Affordable Health Care Act that the entire law must be invalidated. Part of his statement:

“The act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker.”

There are a myriad of other plaintiffs challenging Obamacare: 26 states and also the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

It’s of interest to note that Democrats want Justice Thomas to recuse himself from any hearings on Obamacare and Republicans want Justice Kagan recused.

It’s going to we a wild and bumpy ride.

Crossposted at Unified Patriots News

Crossposted at Conservative Outlooks

Related stories: Dueling demands by Dems & Republicans for justices recusal from hearing Obamacare.

House Republicans vote to overturn Obamacare.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Deplorable Reagan Conservative. Pro-life, pro 2A. Waiting for Obama's "legacy" to be undone.

Twitter: @LadyImpactOhio

"We the People tell government what to do. It does not tell us."__Ronald Reagan in his farewell speech.

Leave a Reply

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 25, 2011 11:57 pm

Appeal delayed – advantage Obama. OK, so case will be dragged through 2012 and become a campaign issue -0- cannot evade – advantage Conservatives. Kagan did not recuse herself – no big surprise, no points either way. GC may weigh in on this and illuminate us, but the line I seem to be hearing from very good sources seems to be that as time goes on the individual mandate is looking”deader and deader,” but the odds other parts of the bill will survive are increasing. But the totality of how these parts play out and counterbalance is still not clear,… Read more »

April 26, 2011 1:41 pm

The fact that the appeal was denied doesn’t surprise me that much. I was hoping that SCOTUS would be proactive in resolving this now, but they’ve chosen standard OP through this denial.

Perhaps this isn’t the place for it, but I’ve got questions about the provisional waivers being offered by DHHS. My understanding is that the money was needed upfront in order to be able to implement the government’s public insurance exchange by 2014. How does the increasing number of waivers being granted play into this? Will it delay the timeline of implementation?