Supreme Court puts brakes on the Health Care Express
By JR Hoeft | Monday, April 25th, 2011 | PolicyThe Federal Fourth District Court might be part of the “rocket docket” but the Supreme Court moves at the speed of slow.
Much to the chagrin of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, Governor Bob McDonnell, and thousands of uncertain Virginia taxpayers and small business owners, the Supreme Court has decided not to expedite the hearing of Virginia’s healthcare lawsuit.
“We asked the United States Supreme Court for expedited review of our lawsuit because Virginia and other states are already spending huge sums to implement their portions of the health care act, businesses are already making decisions about whether to cut or keep employee health plans, and citizens are in limbo until the Supreme Court rules,” said Cuccinelli. “Asking the court to expedite our lawsuit was about removing this crippling and costly uncertainty as quickly as possible.”
“The high court will undoubtedly become the venue for determining if the requirement for every citizen to purchase health insurance violates the Constitution. It would serve all sides better if that determination could be made sooner rather than later,” added McDonnell.
However, both McDonnell and Cuccinelli added that neither is surprised by the court’s decision as it is rare for cases to be expedited.
As it stands, Virginia’s 4th Circuit Court of Appeals will begin to hear arguments about the already-ruled unconstitutional law on May 10.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
6 Responses to "Supreme Court puts brakes on the Health Care Express"
Cuccinelli really sounds like the child, having murdered his parents, who begs the court for mercy because he is an orphan. It is not the waiting for the court that caused the uncertainty, it was the filing of the suit. If he can’t see that, he is blind to the needs of most of our citizens.
JR
Can a separate space on the website be reserved for MB? His collected musings could be indexed and categorized for easy browsing. Each one would have a number. He would post the number and interested parties could look it up.
FYI, Jim: it’s Fourth CIRCUIT Court OF APPEALS, not “Federal Fourth District Court.” District Court’s are trial courts, like Judge Hudson’s court.
And Mike, it is actually you (and the rest of the far Left who support socialized medicine and therefore hate the Constitution) who sound like the Menendez brothers.
The Federal government has no responsibility to meet “the needs” of its citizens beyond those limited powers stated in the Constitution.
But I repeat myself. And Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, etc…..
Not to agree with Mike Barrett, with whom I disagree, but Ken Cuccinelli tried to play politics with his suit and the suit is now at best a victim of the politics of the game. If Ken wanted for the case to be adjudicated quickly by the Supreme Court, he should have filed it in the Supreme Court to begin with, under the Court’s Article III original jurisdiction. However, Ken and his advisors were evidently and then rightly afraid of how the Court would react to their complaint and wanted to first score some legal victories before a local judge, almost certainly cherry-picked and a friend of the attorneys supporting the suit.
Obamacare is unquestionably unconstitutional, and the Tenth Amendment suits by the majority of the suing states must prevail on the merits — not to say that the elitist, super-political Supreme Court is beholden to the Constitution. However, the Cuccinelli’s suit, allegedly defending the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act, which was effectively enacted for the sole purpose of giving the Commonwealth grounds to litigate against Obamacare, would have never survived before an impartial, competent federal judge, which Judge Hogan was not. I am sure Ken Cucinelli’s side wanted to first build some political capital with the federal district court litigation, and possibly at the Fourth Circuit level, and then use that capital to influence the outcome of the cert petition at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court will unlikely offer the Cuccinelli’s team the kind of benefits of personal relationships that they have derived at the district court, and could also rip in the Fourth Circuit. The Supreme Court’s rulings will be based strictly on law and politics. It is quite likely, however, that the refusal by the Court to expedite the case is rooted wholly in the latter. The Justices understand that the majorities of both the Democrats and Republicans in Congress only posture and play politics with Obamacare, and that not even the Republicans on the Hill truly want it repealed, as they have nothing better to offer — not to say there is nothing better to have — which would cover the millions of Americans left without healthcare in this bad economy, crippled by the politicians and their powerful masters. Neither do the Justices want to step in the middle of this, and they would much rather sit back and see if the realities of the next a couple of years will not “resolve” the controversy without their hand in the “resolution.”
And I disagree with Ken’s implication that today’s Court’s decision portends nothing as to the Justices’ intent with regard to his case. I believe the Court in fact positioned itself to rule against the Commonwealth should the politics at the time the suit reaches them through the appellate process permit. By then, Obamacare is likely to become rooted and intertwined with the system to such an extent that it will de facto acquire a specie of political and legal squatters’ rights. Of course, one should hope that by the same time the people’s disgust with the march of corruption, socialism, and totalitarianism in America will have reached such a proportion that the Supreme Court will have no choice but to pay attention to the Constitutional dictates.
Jacob says “Obamacare, not even the Republicans on the Hill truly want it repealed, as they have nothing better to offer — not to say there is nothing better to have — which would cover the millions of Americans left without healthcare in this bad economy.
Uh, did I miss something? Obamacare “benefits” don’t really begin until 2014 (for very good political reasons). And you think the taxes, regulations etc will help the bad economy? And cuts to Medicare and Advantage will benefit seniors? And do you seriously believe millions have been left without health care?? (Or did you mean health care insurance?)
Valentinus,
My caveat, “not to say there is nothing better to have,” which you quoted, shows that it is not my position that Obamacare is the best solution to our problems with the lacking medical coverage for many Americans — to the contrary. I believe Obamacare will be a painful “remedy” for the entire society. But the solutions that are better than Obamacare demand reforms that would dislodge the powerful special interests from their positions of control of our government, something to which the establishment politicians cannot agree. Without that, the Republic will continue to degrade, and with that our industries will continue to crumble, and more and more Americans will be unable to find decent employment and afford good medical care. Again, under such circumstances the coming of socialized medicine will be unavoidable, and Obamacare is a step in that direction.
You are asking if I believe that today millions of Americans are without medical care. The answer is “yes,” as I do not consider the use of the emergency room in times of medical crises, or government programs by the time one’s life is in danger, acceptable medical care. And, as I am sure you know, such “care” is socialist to the core, driving up the government budget deficits, causing greater taxation, and denying the Americans with otherwise good medical insurance good access to the emergency rooms.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.