PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama: SCOTUS stay away from ObamaCare


HonestChieffan
03-14-2011, 09:37 PM
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/obama-stop-550x275.jpg

(Fox News)- The Obama administration told the Supreme Court on Monday night it should stay away from a high-profile challenge to the 2010 health care law until after a lower court has had a chance to review the case.

Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal wrote, “there is no basis for short-circuiting the normal course of appellate review.” Katyal also says Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s case is problematic because he may lack sufficient standing to challenge the health care law.

The Supreme Court normally takes cases only after they’ve been reviewed at least once by appellate judges. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says that’s not appropriate in this instance.

In his filing last month, Cuccinelli said there’s a “palpable consensus” that the high court will ultimately have to pass judgment on the merits of President Obama’s health care law and should do so without delay. Furthermore, Cuccinelli argues that his case involves “pure issues of constitutional law” that appellate judges on the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will be unable to definitively resolve.

Katyal says there is no question that the case is of great public importance but uses the language of the court’s own rules to say it is not “one of the rare cases that justifies deviation from normal appellate practice and require[s] immediate determination in this court.” Katyal points out that the Virginia case and several others are already in the pipeline and little time may be saved if the court were to jump in now.

Read on...http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/14/white-house-urges-supreme-court-jump-health-care-law-cases

ClevelandBronco
03-14-2011, 09:55 PM
Why don't they just say it? They're hoping like hell that one of the conservative Supremes dies before the case can be heard.

orange
03-14-2011, 10:15 PM
Justice Ginsburg in an interview said the SCOTUS would probably hold off because they prefer a number of appellate decisions to work with on something like this.

mnchiefsguy
03-15-2011, 12:26 AM
What right has the President to tell the SCOTUS what to do? They will review the case when they feel like it. If they want to wait for an appellate court, they can, if they decide they want to, they can hear the case tomorrow. It is within their jurisdiction. The President needs to attend a separation of powers class, he clearly has no respect for the judicial branch, although I bet that would change if the court were to swing to the left.

go bowe
03-15-2011, 01:08 AM
Why don't they just say it? They're hoping like hell that one of the conservative Supremes dies before the case can be heard.well, it won't be roberts or alito...

probably not thomas...

scalia is only in his 70's and is much too ornery to die any time soon...

kennedy is old but he's not ready to go quite yet...

when obama is re-elected, he will be able to replace the old liberals but i don't think he will get a chance to appoint another liberal to the court...

but the next president who will also be a democrat might get a shot at it... :P :P :P

go bowe
03-15-2011, 01:43 AM
What right has the President to tell the SCOTUS what to do? They will review the case when they feel like it. If they want to wait for an appellate court, they can, if they decide they want to, they can hear the case tomorrow. It is within their jurisdiction. The President needs to attend a separation of powers class, he clearly has no respect for the judicial branch, although I bet that would change if the court were to swing to the left.despite the way the article describes it as telling the supremes what to do, it was simply a routine legal brief making arguments against taking the case immediately rather than allowing the case to make it's way up through the appeals courts like any other case...

it isn't telling the court what to do at all...

that's not what a brief does...

it presents arguments as to why the court should or should not take an action requested by one of the parties to the case...

Amnorix
03-15-2011, 07:00 AM
What right has the President to tell the SCOTUS what to do? They will review the case when they feel like it. If they want to wait for an appellate court, they can, if they decide they want to, they can hear the case tomorrow. It is within their jurisdiction. The President needs to attend a separation of powers class, he clearly has no respect for the judicial branch, although I bet that would change if the court were to swing to the left.


A party to a case can't argue for its position before the Court. That is what you are saying.

Turn on your brains people. This is what the Solicitor General DOES -- goes and argues the federal government's position before the Supreme Court. Christ.

Amnorix
03-15-2011, 07:02 AM
I also note that the US's position is for the SCOTUS to do what it does about 99.9% of the time. Direct review is pretty much unheard of.

FishingRod
03-15-2011, 12:51 PM
This is a non story, pretty standard on both sides these days where there is no news just make some

mnchiefsguy
03-15-2011, 05:24 PM
A party to a case can't argue for its position before the Court. That is what you are saying.

Turn on your brains people. This is what the Solicitor General DOES -- goes and argues the federal government's position before the Supreme Court. Christ.

The Solicitor General needs to worry about argue the merits of the case...not telling the Supreme Court whether it should hear the case or not. It is a subtle difference, but the executive branch should not be setting the agenda for the judicial branch. I have no problems with the Solicitor General arguing its case, but the tone from this administration has been that the Supreme Court should be doing the bidding of the White House (and if they don't, then they can expect to be called out at the state of the union.) The White House needs to be more respectful of the Court, especially considering that this case is going to be before the court at some point.

petegz28
03-15-2011, 09:13 PM
Regardless of your position, this comes off as whining. Just seems to come across as the Obama Admin. isn't so confident that what they did will pass the Constitutional mustard.

Amnorix
03-15-2011, 09:30 PM
The Solicitor General needs to worry about argue the merits of the case...not telling the Supreme Court whether it should hear the case or not. It is a subtle difference, but the executive branch should not be setting the agenda for the judicial branch. I have no problems with the Solicitor General arguing its case, but the tone from this administration has been that the Supreme Court should be doing the bidding of the White House (and if they don't, then they can expect to be called out at the state of the union.) The White House needs to be more respectful of the Court, especially considering that this case is going to be before the court at some point.

Don't be absurd. Lawyers are always forum shopping and trying to manuever cases into the best position it can to win. Anything else is idiotic.

And tone has nothing to do with it. Dont' think for a tenth of a second that the Solicitor General was doing anything other than arguing his position in a very respectful tone.

Frankly, this thread is totally worthless. This is EXTREMELY routine.

Amnorix
03-15-2011, 09:31 PM
Regardless of your position, this comes off as whining. Just seems to come across as the Obama Admin. isn't so confident that what they did will pass the Constitutional mustard.

This thread is utterly worthless. This kind of manuevering is EXTREMELY routine. There is absolutely nothing to see here.