The Court’s denial of review in Virginia v. Sebelius (10-1014) was entirely expected. The Justices have the authority to take a case for review before any federal appeals court rules, but they seldom do so. But another factor that may have figured in Monday’s action was that it is late in the current Term so the case could only be reviewed promptly by setting up an unusually fast briefing and argument schedule, and, if that were not done, the case would go over to the new Term starting in October, anyway. One or more of the cases now under review in the federal appeals courts is expected to reach the Court in the new Term. It is widely assumed that, when that happens, the Court will step in.
२५ एप्रिल, २०११
"Court refuses Virginia’s plea for fast-track review of the constitutional challenge to the new health care law."
SCOTUSblog reports:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२२ टिप्पण्या:
The Court’s denial of review in Virginia v. Sebelius (10-1014) was entirely expected.
Then this isn't news.
It's all part of the hole, Ann, it's all part of the hole,...
We're probably about 3 weeks away from Joe Corsi's "Where's the Birth Cirtificate?"
My guess is that "Obama," is not his real name. Or his adopted name, either. Given his mom was 17 years old, she didn't have time (from high school), to go to Kenya.
But she did get pregnant. Back in the days of back alley abortions. Which meant you had to "know someone who knew someone." Or the teenage gal got sent off to an unwed mother's home. With plenty of people who couldn't have kids on their own, opting for adoption. It was a big charity business. Today's kids haven't even heard of this!
But what happened IF young Stanley Ann was sent to Washington State? To an unwed mothers home. Where she'd have been housed and fed throughout her pregnancy?
Remember the fuss made when Chief Justice Roberts didn't give "The Oath" exactly right?
Politics is like our Wild West. It doesn't know from Law & Order. Until a stranger shows up.
Been showing up for the insiders since Andrew Jackson got to town! He won 3 races. But the first one was stolen from him. By Henry Clay. Who was Speaker of the House.
You expect this to show up in history books? Whom do you think is in charge of our history books?
But the information is there.
Hiding in plain sight.
The court politicians can avoid what they like. They lose respect from others every day. Just as the cops do.
No Strangers, yet, on the scene, with self-taught confidence. Lincoln had this by the boatload.
That's why he jumped ship in 1860, away from the WHIGS.
Henry Clay couldn't get elected dog catcher at that point.
Will Trump be out "stranger?" He carries no political baggage. So he qualifies.
And, Corsi blew a big fat hole write into Gigolo John Kerry's boat. SWIFT? It wasn't.
Did Kerry ever have to return his medals? NO. As a matter of fact, he's tops among the senators, with his hands all over our military.
You want fair? When were you born? I'm putting money on the horse that Obama should have looked at Nancy Pelosi's package, first. Because she be-ribboned it with his reputation.
Gets to be more like Dubya every day.
sarge here hole or whole?
ahole??
So does this mean we'll have a Supreme Court judgement regarding PPACA at the height of the 2012 Presidential campaign?
Hosed.
The public is hosed. By the time they hear this case at the Supreme Court, the insurance and medical industries will have been destroyed or degraded to the point that they will not be able to function again.
Working as Obama intended. Just one more nail in the coffin of what used to be America and freedom.
The rules started by Obamacare are already being implemented, mostly because the demands for compliance by providers and health systems come online quickly, and you have to already be doing the data collection required by the date announced.
In essence, the doctor's visit will quickly become dominated by those issues and tests the experts deem important, and the things you yourself are concerned with, things like symptoms and pain, are second in line.
Who pays the piper calls the tune.
Phil 3:16 wrote:
So does this mean we'll have a Supreme Court judgement regarding PPACA at the height of the 2012 Presidential campaign?
I was just about to reply like this; that's what I believe, myself, too. And frankly, if the SCOTUS shoot down ObamaCare, I think it'll be a golden nugget for the Republicans (those of you Pawlenty supporters, rejoice).
BTW, THE WEEK OF THE ROYAL WEDDING IS HERE! Yay! Bounce! Bounce!
Cheers,
Victoria
Any unpopularity ObamaCare had associated with it is quickly becoming eclipsed by RyanCare. At least judging from the townhalls in Wisconsin. Awk-ward.
You don't want to upset the court's vacation schedule or anything.
Medicare users are going to be unhappy no matter what.
"Status quo" is not an option. Sorry, garage. Yeah, people are going to be furious when they discover their "plan" includes less and less over time.
For example, starting this year, Medicare users are going to find getting dialysis becoming more and more difficult. Fewer dialysis centers will mean driving long distances, or doing peritoneal dialysis.
Here's the fluffy version.
And renal failure with anemia?
Ha ha ha.
Too bad!
"The hemoglobin level at which nephrologists initiate and hold erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESAs) in dialysis patients has declined compared to both the prior year and prior quarter and nephrologists expect this to ultimately result in fewer hemodialysis patients being treated with ESAs in the next six months, and lower dosages when treated."
Fuck seniors, they can go rot and eat cat food for all I care. They have plundered by future.
Hey garage you wanted the generational war, you've GOT it.
Carol is a true stream of consciousness commenter. On the other hand, I'll read you more if you paragraph less.
Off topic though related to "fast track", this for Garage.
This quote caught my eye:
Next to me on the decrepit, but packed, vehicle was a 17-year-old girl migrating to Beijing to search for work. She had never heard of the high-speed train, but when informed it cost $9, as opposed to $5.40 for the bus, expressed no regret at missing it.
I was in DC a month ago but flew into BWI. The slow train is about $5 the "fast one" is about $40 bucks. Why would I take the fast train?
Not surprising in the slightest. I suspect that, on the one hand, none of the Justices save Kennedy want to take this issue, in any way shape or form, and they're all hoping that if the law wins below, they won't have to. And if, on the other hand, they do have to take the cases, I suspect that they would prefer to take several cases and consolidate them to ensure that the issues are fully ventilated, much as they took the Black-Skilling-Weyhrauch trio to clean up the honest services fraud mess. (And a frightening mess it was; United States v. Turner, 591 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2010).)
Another thing to consider, from the perspective of claim processing and judicial economy (not to mention professional courtesy): What kind of message would be sent about the value of the courts of appeals and their work, and in indeed the Supreme Court's valuation of those courts' work, if they were treated as a dispensable step on any issue deemed sufficiently "important"?
they're all hoping that if the law wins below
How does that make a difference, though? The administration is going to appeal any loss to the next tier, aren't they?
Scott, the Supreme Court typically takes cases in one of two situations: a circuit split or a court below strikes down a federal law. If the 4th, 6th, and 11th circuits all uphold PaPACA, and if there's no significant disagreement between them, the court would not be departing from its normal practice by denying cert.
the court would not be departing from its normal practice by denying cert.
If they all struck down the individual mandate, given the ferocity of the Dems actions to pass this thing, what then? Is it game over legally? (legislatively, I understand, is a different story)
Scott, you mean if SCOTUS struck down the individual mandate? Then the severability issue must be tackled (as Judge Vinson did). Of course, they might punt by striking down the mandate and remanding to the courts below; it just depends on how the cases come to them and what they can get a majority for.
If you mean what would happen if one or more of the courts of appeals struck down the mandate, then SCOTUS would almost certainly take the case, regardless of whether the mandate was severed. I mean, they could deny cert anyway, but in reality, even if the courts below are uniform in striking down a federal statute, SCOTUS is going to take the case because it believes that "judging the constitutionality of an Act of Congress is the gravest and most delicate duty that [courts are] … called on to perform," and that lower courts can't just go around striking down statutes without proper supervision. They might not put it in quite such bold terms, and one might challenge the premise that deciding a constitutional challenge against a statute is very different to deciding that challenge for the statute (not to mention why, if three judges can't be trusted to overrule the Article 1 process, nine can be), but that's the thinking.
The latter, thanks.
On a related note. We Can't tax our way out of the Medicare mess
(HT: Bob Laszewski @ Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review)
No. 4. Votes.
It means in conference there was a decision not to wade in.
There are 50 states.
Pelosi had to give up her speaker's office.
And, we're heading into 2012 territory with Trump blasting his trumpet. Why assume there's no worries? Rove's worried. The Bush's can't push Jeb forward.
Mitt may have wasted a fortune?
And, Trump gains ground.
While our economy tanks. Cardiologists just got "tagged" at their own conference! And, lots of people's property remains under water.
You think only Libya is taking hits?
We should put up STORM WARNING signs.
If enough people are angry about what's been happening in DC ... you just never know how many politicians will have to retire, ahead.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा