The U.S. Supreme Court has denied Virginia’s petition to have its lawsuit against federal health-care legislation bypass appellate review and be heard directly by the court.
As a result, the lawsuit will continue on its current path to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is scheduled to hear the case May 10 in Richmond.
More than two dozen other states, led by Republican attorneys general, also are parties to lawsuits against the health-care law. Hearings are scheduled in three appellate courts in May and June. On this schedule, the Supreme Court could decide the case by summer 2012.
The court on Monday turned down without comment Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s bid to expedite high-court review of litigation against President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The Supreme Court rarely grants the petitions to bypass appellate review, but Cuccinelli had argued that Virginia and other states and businesses are being forced to spend millions of dollars to prepare and implement the law, making a swift disposition of the matter urgent and in the interest of all parties.
“Asking the court to expedite our lawsuit was about removing this crippling and costly uncertainty as quickly as possible,” Cuccinelli said in a statement, describing the ruling as “disappointing” but “not surprising.”
Gov. Bob McDonnell also expressed disappointment in the ruling, noting that the Supreme Court ultimately will decide the case.
It looks like the Red Boys of Virginia will have to wait their turn like everyone else. Meanwhile, the health care provision requiring everyone to pruchase health care insurance will be batted around the lower courts. Virginia and other states must prepare for HCR just like everyone else.
How many things has the Cooch sued over to date? I have lost track.
what a pathetic situation, such an important hearing has to be delayed because the supreme court only hears oral arguments from october through the end of april. yes, we must prepare for hcr, along with $6/gallon gas by summer, and the entire financial meltdown of the dollar and america. let the good times roll!
Do you have health care, e?
Just curious.
yes, but real men don’t go to doctors
And does your company provide it?
@e
Real men who don’t go to doctors are stupid, which helps reduce the gene pool of “real men”.
@e
“the supreme court only hears oral arguments from october through the end of april.”–not necessarily so. Can start as early as September and go past April–it’s up to the SCOTUS.
Where do you buy your gas ’cause I want to avoid that place for sure.
Moon, I note e had not provided an answer to your question regarding who provides his health insurance.
It’s kinda nice to watch Cooch twist in the breeze–interesting way to cool his heels.
This is excellent news, and prevents a tactical error on the part of Cooch. This card needs to be played smack in the middle of the 2012 election season when voters are tuned in and you can do the most damage, not right now.
I agree with Cato. This now becomes a presidential election issue. It also removes the political aspect of the case being heard by Thomas, Scalia and Kagan (the whole issue on recusals).
I’m pleased.
And it will remind us that the most important reason to vote for a president is to avoid putting in people like Clarence Thomas and Anthony Scalia and other activist judges.
Clarence Thomas through his wife is one of the most activists judges we have had in a long time. Alito even mouthed at the President during a State of the Union address. I thought that was activist also.
MH, I don’t see that having much traction with the average voter. The average voter is more concerned with jobs, gas price and healthcare and less with “activist judges”.
During the next electoral cycle those on the lower end of the economic ladder are going to question what hope and change has gotten them. Look at the price of gas and look at the lines to get your “free rationed government healthcare” and take pause.
Same with the middle class. When you go from having an employer healthcare policy that lets you see anyone to your government plan where you wait 22*days to see a GP..
I’m just fine leading up to the elections. 🙂
@marin you know, I might agree with you if you presented a realistic scene. But you haven’t.
More people will have medicaid. People with employee health care will still have it.
You are doomsdaying.
Election time is always a good time to remind people that one reason for electing an individual as president are those supreme court appointments.
And you are overlooking a rather serious fundamental truism that should not need to be pointed out.
Yep… we might end up with more unqualified people like Sotomayor……
Just out of curiosity, why do you think she is unqualified? I don’t even think you need a law degree to be a supreme court justice. Is this an opinion?
Just an opinion. I did not like the way she answered her questions. I can’t really provide the information. At the time, I had a lot of links, etc.
Lets restate that as unsound, instead of unqualified. I think she’s a very liberal, group identity, political person.
Of course, you mileage may vary.
Just as you don’t like Scalia and Thomas, I don’t like Sotomayor and Kagan.
How about Breyer and Ginsburg?
My favorite has left. 2 favorites even.
@Moon-howler
Maybe it’s doomsdaying but I still say that a commercial showing high gas prices, long lines to splint a broken arm, and foreclosure/not hiring signs makes for a much better electoral commercial than
..don’t vote for the other guy because he’ll pick out the next supreme court justice for the next 20~ years.
BTW, how many people can name all the Justices? I bet 9/10 voters can tell you how much they paid for gas at last fillup but 1/4 could give you more than 5 Justices..
I wouldn’t even talk to people who couldn’t name at least half of the justices.
I try not to talk to people who think that the president has any control over gas prices.
The foreclosure signs didn’t seem to have much of an impact on how anyone voted either.
@marin
When you point out the decisions that a justice might soon be making, I am not so sure which is more important. You also need to explain that the balance hangs on a thread. In many ways that person will have far more control than any president.
@Moon-howler
The President’s control over gas prices in indirect. In this case, its because Obama is directing the Treasury to inflate the money supply. All oil is purchased in dollars. Therefore, it takes more of them to equal a barrel of oil. Furthermore, his moratorium on drilling hurts. As does the EPA’s current hostility to energy producers.
All other factors are out of his control.
@Moon-howler
While I sometimes share the same feeling of “not wanting to deal with the rabble” the truth is – rich or poor, white or black, male or female, literate or not.. all citizens have a right to vote. So, while some people may be inclined to hear the high brow arguement of a SCOTUS Justice being appointed in the future what more people are inclined to worry about is: will I be employed in 6 months? What and how will higher gas prices impact me? Will the banks or government take my home?
I hear what your saying and I’m not saying you don’t have a valid arguement. Just saying that more people are worried about and can be swayed by my arguement than yours.
Cargo, POLITICO has an article on the EPA Head saying it’s not regulation that’s causing high gas prices.. it’s that we may not be drilling enough here and that when things happen abroad (wars) that has an impact on gas prices at the pump. In short, DRILL BABY DRILL!
Where do you want to drill marin?
Anywhere that has oil. 🙂
@marinm
Yeeeaahh…the EPA would say that…except that it’s the EPA that wants to regulate CO2, that disapproved a previously approved coal mine, and just shut down Shell from drilling after they spent 4 billion in exploration and leases.
So, yeah, drill, baby drill!
And build nukes.
And more coal.
And wind, solar, microwave satellites (remember that idea?), natural gas, and anything else that will provide power.
Because if we DON’T produce, we will starve to death, freezing, in the dark.