Now here come the Recusal demands...

Health reform lawsuit appears headed for Supreme Court

The Obama administration chose not to ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear a pivotal health reform case Monday, signaling that it’s going to ask the Supreme Court to decide whether President Barack Obama’s health reform law is constitutional.

The move puts the Supreme Court in the difficult position of having to decide whether to take the highly politically charged case in the middle of the presidential election.

The Justice Department is expected to ask the court to overturn an August decision by a panel of three judges in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that found the law’s requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. The suit was brought by 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business, and several individuals.

Since the ruling, the Justice Department had until Monday to ask the entire 11th Circuit to review the case. Administration lawyers didn’t file the paperwork by the 5 p.m. deadline, so the ruling would stand unless the Justice Department asks the Supreme Court to step in.

The petition isn’t due until November, and the administration could get an extension.

Opponents of the law had expected the government to ask for the so-called en banc hearing to delay a ruling by the Supreme Court.

“The president and solicitor general deserve full credit for refusing to employ delaying tactics in this pressing constitutional controversy,” said Randy E. Barnett, a Georgetown Law professor who is working with the plaintiffs.

But former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, who has worked on briefs in support of the legislation, said the move should be read as a sign of confidence from the administration.

“This confirms what I had already concluded: That the government is confident that it’s going to prevail in the Supreme Court and would like to have a decision sooner rather than later,” Dellinger told POLITICO.



The issue of the constitutionality of the individual mandate has been widely expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The key question has been the timing. The Justice Department’s apparent decision to ask the Supreme Court to review the case greatly increases the chances the issue will be heard in the 2011-12 term, which begins Monday.

The Supreme Court now has several strong reasons to accept the case. The court rarely declines requests from the government to take a case, especially in situations in which a circuit court has struck down a piece of a high-profile law.

There is also a split between the appeals courts. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the mandate, the 11th Circuit has ruled it unconstitutional, and the 4th Circuit has ruled that a tax law prevents it from issuing a decision on the mandate until at least 2014.

“The odds are pretty significant the court will take the case now,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, which has filed briefs in support of the law.

But a Supreme Court ruling in the middle of a presidential election could carry serious political risks, since a decision upholding or striking the mandate has the potential to galvanize either Republicans or Democrats.

If the court accepts the case before January, it is likely to be put on the calendar to be heard in the spring. A decision would likely be postponed until June.

The 26 states and the NFIB have said they would work quickly to file briefing papers to ensure the case can move quickly.

The Justice Department did not explain its decision, but there were strong reasons for it not to pursue the en banc hearing.

There are only five judges appointed by Democrats on the 11-judge circuit, and one them has already ruled to strike down the mandate. So far, many judges have ruled along the party lines of the president who nominated him or her. So it’s unlikely the government would have gotten a better response out of the full panel.

It’s also possible that the 11th Circuit wouldn’t have agreed to re-hear the case.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64475.html

I'm interested to see how this plays out. Any decision with energize one base or the other to show up on poll day.

(09-27-2011 08:41 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Now here come the Recusal demands...

Health reform lawsuit appears headed for Supreme Court

The Obama administration chose not to ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear a pivotal health reform case Monday, signaling that it’s going to ask the Supreme Court to decide whether President Barack Obama’s health reform law is constitutional.

The move puts the Supreme Court in the difficult position of having to decide whether to take the highly politically charged case in the middle of the presidential election.

The Justice Department is expected to ask the court to overturn an August decision by a panel of three judges in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that found the law’s requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. The suit was brought by 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business, and several individuals.

Since the ruling, the Justice Department had until Monday to ask the entire 11th Circuit to review the case. Administration lawyers didn’t file the paperwork by the 5 p.m. deadline, so the ruling would stand unless the Justice Department asks the Supreme Court to step in.

The petition isn’t due until November, and the administration could get an extension.

Opponents of the law had expected the government to ask for the so-called en banc hearing to delay a ruling by the Supreme Court.

“The president and solicitor general deserve full credit for refusing to employ delaying tactics in this pressing constitutional controversy,” said Randy E. Barnett, a Georgetown Law professor who is working with the plaintiffs.

But former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, who has worked on briefs in support of the legislation, said the move should be read as a sign of confidence from the administration.

“This confirms what I had already concluded: That the government is confident that it’s going to prevail in the Supreme Court and would like to have a decision sooner rather than later,” Dellinger told POLITICO.



The issue of the constitutionality of the individual mandate has been widely expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The key question has been the timing. The Justice Department’s apparent decision to ask the Supreme Court to review the case greatly increases the chances the issue will be heard in the 2011-12 term, which begins Monday.

The Supreme Court now has several strong reasons to accept the case. The court rarely declines requests from the government to take a case, especially in situations in which a circuit court has struck down a piece of a high-profile law.

There is also a split between the appeals courts. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the mandate, the 11th Circuit has ruled it unconstitutional, and the 4th Circuit has ruled that a tax law prevents it from issuing a decision on the mandate until at least 2014.

“The odds are pretty significant the court will take the case now,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, which has filed briefs in support of the law.

But a Supreme Court ruling in the middle of a presidential election could carry serious political risks, since a decision upholding or striking the mandate has the potential to galvanize either Republicans or Democrats.

If the court accepts the case before January, it is likely to be put on the calendar to be heard in the spring. A decision would likely be postponed until June.

The 26 states and the NFIB have said they would work quickly to file briefing papers to ensure the case can move quickly.

The Justice Department did not explain its decision, but there were strong reasons for it not to pursue the en banc hearing.

There are only five judges appointed by Democrats on the 11-judge circuit, and one them has already ruled to strike down the mandate. So far, many judges have ruled along the party lines of the president who nominated him or her. So it’s unlikely the government would have gotten a better response out of the full panel.

It’s also possible that the 11th Circuit wouldn’t have agreed to re-hear the case.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64475.html

Hey mron, do you really think he would put it up before the Supreme Court during the presidential campaign if he didn't think it would stand? Seriously, it would probably kill his re-election bid if it failed.

(09-27-2011 11:59 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Hey mron, do you really think he would put it up before the Supreme Court during the presidential campaign if he didn't think it would stand? Seriously, it would probably kill his re-election bid if it failed.

You've GOT to be kidding me. 3 courts, 3 different opinions, but you think he's so confident he'll risk his re-election on a court he's been dead wrong on iirc twice so far (one was DC guns, can't remember the other off hand)

"What he thinks" is immaterial at this point, Robert. Unfortunately you don't just get to decide when to file cases. Once things happen, you have a time period to respond. If you don't respond, you lose forever. The latest ruling is against him, meaning that unless he challenges it, either through the full 11th or the SCOTUS, his law gets scrapped. It appears that he likes his chances better with the SCOTUS than the 11th... that is all this shows. Healthcare reform IS a campaign issue, whether or not he continues with this case. Win or lose... he doesn't have a choice. In fact, losing will only further energize his base to get other judges appointed.

IMO, he wants to make the election about the individual mandate rather than the economy. At least the individual mandate has a 40%+ approval rating.

(09-27-2011 11:59 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Hey mron,

There's that pot and kettle thing again.


Luv ya Rob.

Actually I think Obama wants it to go to the SCOTUS and be ruled unconstitutional. He can then dismiss Republicans campaign comments about Obamacare. He probably also feels it will calm some anger among idependents on this issue and take some of the energy out of the Republican base.

I don't know about this...to have O-Care bounced just before an election can be pretty embarrassing, not to mention all the moeny, time and energy spent promoting/fighting/defending/suing/drafting/etc. If he loses this, what does he say when asked WTF he did for 4 years?

(09-27-2011 08:20 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I don't know about this...to have O-Care bounced just before an election can be pretty embarrassing, not to mention all the moeny, time and energy spent promoting/fighting/defending/suing/drafting/etc. If he loses this, what does he say when asked WTF he did for 4 years?

Gave the order to kill OBL. Vacations and bowing.

If the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional, ObamaCare collapses. I'd love to see some Politicians try to campaign in 2012 on the position that they now favor "Single Payer" to replace ObamaCare.

(09-27-2011 10:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(09-27-2011 08:20 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I don't know about this...to have O-Care bounced just before an election can be pretty embarrassing, not to mention all the moeny, time and energy spent promoting/fighting/defending/suing/drafting/etc. If he loses this, what does he say when asked WTF he did for 4 years?

Gave the order to kill OBL. Vacations and bowing.

Read a Teleprompter a couple of thousand times.

(09-28-2011 12:04 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  If the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional, ObamaCare collapses. I'd love to see some Politicians try to campaign in 2012 on the position that they now favor "Single Payer" to replace ObamaCare.

Many have been doing that all along. Many prefer single payer but signed on w/ "Obamacare" because single payer wasn't going to pass because morons in the tea party wouldn't let a better system go through.

I overheard Justice Scalia discussing his views on the economy, and Obamacare when I served him last month at my old job.... and I think he hit the nail on the head. "The President has every right to to push legislation, and Congress to pass it. However, when it infringes on individual rights, it is unconstitutional." (Not an exact quote, and he was far more eloquent than that. Nice guy, and his wife is lovely btw.)

(09-28-2011 12:34 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-28-2011 12:04 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  If the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional, ObamaCare collapses. I'd love to see some Politicians try to campaign in 2012 on the position that they now favor "Single Payer" to replace ObamaCare.

Many have been doing that all along. Many prefer single payer but signed on w/ "Obamacare" because single payer wasn't going to pass because morons in the tea party wouldn't let a better system go through.

That's an extraordinarily idiotic comment, even for you. It was the conservative democrats that Obama and the democrat leadership compromised with. There were no compromises with any republicans, let alone TEA Party members. If you wish to contest this statemnt, please indicate what compromises with republicans and/or TEA Party members you think occurred.

Owl speaks the truth...the battles Obama fought legislatively prior to the midterms were with his own party. Until Scott Brown won the mass senate seat they had Washington completely locked up...even after Brown took office they still had enough "moderate" Republicans in the Senate to pass pretty much whatever they wanted.

Harry Reid had a filibuster proof Senate and couldn't pass a budget....that should tell you what the real problem facing Democrats has been: incompetent leadership

(09-28-2011 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2011 12:34 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-28-2011 12:04 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  If the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional, ObamaCare collapses. I'd love to see some Politicians try to campaign in 2012 on the position that they now favor "Single Payer" to replace ObamaCare.

Many have been doing that all along. Many prefer single payer but signed on w/ "Obamacare" because single payer wasn't going to pass because morons in the tea party wouldn't let a better system go through.

That's an extraordinarily idiotic comment, even for you. It was the conservative democrats that Obama and the democrat leadership compromised with. There were no compromises with any republicans, let alone TEA Party members. If you wish to contest this statemnt, please indicate what compromises with republicans and/or TEA Party members you think occurred.

He lives in a dream world. Get back to work, Roberta, before you get fired. Worthless bas\tard.

(09-28-2011 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2011 12:34 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-28-2011 12:04 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  If the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional, ObamaCare collapses. I'd love to see some Politicians try to campaign in 2012 on the position that they now favor "Single Payer" to replace ObamaCare.

Many have been doing that all along. Many prefer single payer but signed on w/ "Obamacare" because single payer wasn't going to pass because morons in the tea party wouldn't let a better system go through.

That's an extraordinarily idiotic comment, even for you. It was the conservative democrats that Obama and the democrat leadership compromised with. There were no compromises with any republicans, let alone TEA Party members. If you wish to contest this statemnt, please indicate what compromises with republicans and/or TEA Party members you think occurred.

As not one person on the right voted for it as it was, it seems silly to argue that he compromised with them to get it passed... especially in that not one democrat voted against it. Do politicians REGULARLY compromise on legislation that doesn't swing a vote? Stupid ones, I guess.

As to the individual mandate being unconstitutional... All he has to do is raise FICA to cover it. Of course, it's not REALLY a tax in name... but it is probably harder for his buddies to get a waiver from... and CLEARLY a "tax" on people earning MUCH less than 200k.

Gave the order to kill al-Awlaki.

The Bush anti-terror mechanism seem to be working for Obabba.

The human intelligence pipeline was essentially blown up under Clinton. I think Clinton was overall a much better president than Shrub, but that doesn't mean everything he did was right.

After 9/11 it became obvious that we had to get back into the humint business in a big way. That takes time. It started to pay off some during the latter Shrub years, and has paid off big on a couple of occasions under Obama. I think Obama is very much a worse president than Clinton or Shrub, but that doesn't mean that nothing good happens on his watch. Just far more bad than good.