« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Supreme Court will not expedite Obamacare suit.

To summarize: Ken Cuccinelli, Attorney General for Virginia, requested that the US Supreme Court expedite its presumed-inevitable review of the Virginia Obamacare suit currently wending its way through the lower courts (this is the suit that found the individual mandate both unconstitutional, and severable, from the rest of Obamacare*).  The court has declined to do so; which means that the issue will probably not be actually addressed until the summer of 2012.  This decision is of note for two reasons:

  1. The eventual Supreme Court decision will be – no matter what it actually is – a burning issue in the 2012 Presidential election.  The White House apparently thinks that this will end up helping the President; to which I respond that the White House should stop and think about its to-date track record when it comes to predicting popular opinion.  Or, more accurately, that it should not, as so far said track record has been very helpful for the Republican party.
  2. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan apparently did not recuse herself from this particular situation – this, despite evidence that suggests that she should recuse herself, given her possible involvement in the Department of Justice’s original plans to challenge Obamacare (remember, Kagan at that time was Solicitor General).  There was a FOIA request made on these issues; it may not be wise for the White House to let that go unfilled until the summer of 2012, too.

Personally, I can’t say that I can blame the Supreme Court for not wanting to be sucked in prematurely to the issue of Obamacare; it’s bad enough that they’re already expected to at least ameliorate Pelosi, Reid, and Obama’s incompetence on full, malignant display with regard to this abomination.  Personally, I would have preferred that the Democrats had never put the Supreme Court in this position in the first place; then again, I would have also preferred that the Democratic leadership had stayed away from ‘fixing’ health care and instead stuck to things more suited to their intellectual capacity, like passing resolutions honoring National Rutabaga Day.

But that’s just me.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*The Florida decision was the one that declared the individual mandate unconstitutional and not severable from the rest of Obamacare (thus making the whole thing unconstitutional, too).

COMMENTS

  • http://twitter.com/TJexcite tjexcite

    To Justice Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. If anyone of these people are not around in 2012 who knows what will happen. Even with them there it still is a unknown until they decide, but it will be an albatross to O.

  • rightwingmom52

    Also, the possible nomination of another SC justice by Obama if re-elected should be a huge campaign issue. I just hope the GOP is smart enough to use this to our advantage.

  • caboose

    is flagrantly violating Article lll, Section ll, of the US Constitution, as follows,”In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Courtshall have orginal Jurisdiction.” Just once I would like to see a State stand up and tell the Supreme Court, you don’t have the right or the luxury of delegating States rights, to an inferior Court. We will consider your refusal to fullfill your responsibility and duty under the US Constitution, as a mandate for us (State) take whatever action we see fit to rectify the problem.

  • earlgrey
  • windwaker24

    Someone else sees it! This has bugged me ever since Obamacare passed!!!The Supreme Court are just a plain lazy! They hear 10 cases a year and spend most of they time on vacation or away from the Court, speaking at mindless school! We paid them to WORK! If they don’t want to do that, they can all GO HOME!

  • Common_Cents

    Ha, that’s a laugh. They’ll fall for the ol’ let’s be collegial and give an up or down vote for nearly anyone Obama would nominate.

  • schteve

    The Supreme Court didn’t magically abandon its original jurisdiction over this case. It still has it, but that doesn’t mean it is *required* to hear the case first. It shares original jurisdiction with the lower courts thanks 28 USC ? 1251.