No, they haven't agreed to review it yet, but doesn't everyone expect it to make the docket this year? Saw this blurb on Slate about one of the recent Appeal's Court rulings, marked significant because of some interesting rationale from the 2 Republican nominated judges who participated in the ruling (including Laurence Silberman). Now, the articles author appears to be part of a left-leaning Constitutional organization, but it doesn't hurt to read some rather "unexpected" verbiage from conservative jurists. Definitely not from the libertarian when convenient strain of conservatism.

Copy and paste this link to read (link is too long):

Plus, might as well have a place for future discussion, once this hits the Supreme Court for real.

EDIT: link was too long for BBS's automatic creation of link. I have fixed it.

link appears to be broken.

(11-13-2011 02:53 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  link appears to be broken.

I think I have this fixed now. Sorry about that.

Apparently, the Court's announced it will hear arguments next year, possibly March.

(11-14-2011 10:37 AM)JSA Wrote:  Apparently, the Court's announced it will hear arguments next year, possibly March.

SCOTUS took the appeal out of the 11th Circuit which is one of the four choices. Five hours of oral argument. Ought to be fun at that podium.

There's a good synopsis of the particular questions SCOTUS accepted at scotusblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/court-...ore-131850

Quote:Here, in summary, is what the Court’s orders on Monday did:

* Granted, the issue of “severability” of the insurance mandate from the other provisions of the law, if the mandate is nullified (the only question in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [docket 11-393] and question 3 in Florida, et al., v. Health & Human Services Department [11-400]), cases consolidated for 90 minutes of oral argument.

* Granted, the constitutionality of the insurance mandate (question 1 in the government case, Health & Human Services Department v. Florida, et al.), two hours of oral argument.

* Parties directed to brief and argue whether the lawsuit brought by the states to the insurance mandate is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act (an added question in the government case, 11-398); one hour of oral argument. (That order appeared to be limited to reviewing whether that Act only bars states from challenging the mandate; the question of whether that Act bars private entities from challenging the mandate was raised in the Liberty University case, and the Court did not grant that petition.)

* Granted, the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion (question 1 in the Florida, et al., case, 11-400, one hour of oral argument.