Obama asks SCOTUS to hold off on healthcare case (Putin, illegal, death)

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

What is wrong? I will look forward to you backing up your claim.

Not only did I backup my claim, but I listed the laws.. Again, 1903 and the 1974 Exepdition Acts.. You have yet to dispute me.. You just keep claiming I'm wrong..

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

A basic understanding of the process. Why do you think it takes more than that to have a grasp of an issue being discussed in these forums?

If you had a basic understanding of the process, you wouldnt be asking me to substantiate my claims because anyone with basic understanding of the process knows that the Supreme Court can hear ANY DAM CASE IT WANTS..

They have bypassed lower court hearings on NUMEROUS cases..

[lifelongMOgal]

This adminsitration is printing Obamacare waiver's almost as fast as the FED is printing IOU's.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

But, there will not be a reversal on appeal. Not
for the insurance mandate anyway.

The plaintffs do not appear as confident of that as you are.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by pghquest

The NORMAL process is to expedite court hearings which have national impact.

That's just dumb. Every case in front of SCOTUS has national impact or they don't bother to hear it.

Only a tiny number get expedited.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

This adminsitration is printing Obamacare waiver's almost as fast as the FED is printing IOU's.

Exactly as the law was designed.

[TRUEGRITT]

Let's see...Obamacare, lets follow standard procedure because a judge has declared it unconstitutional.

DOMA...lets not defend that and follow standard procedure because a judge has declared it unconstitutional.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT

Let's see...Obamacare, lets follow standard procedure because a judge has declared it unconstitutional.

DOMA...lets not defend that and follow standard procedure because a judge has declared it unconstitutional.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

~Emerson

[Strel]

Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT

Let's see...Obamacare, lets follow standard procedure because a judge has declared it unconstitutional.

DOMA...lets not defend that and follow standard procedure because a judge has declared it unconstitutional.

As has been explained to you numerous times, it's Obama's prerogative.

[GreenGene]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

~Emerson

Excellent! Wish I could rep you again.

[Jill61]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

So?


He didn't ask for it to stop.

The order was to file an appeal in 7 days. He filed the appeal in seven days. What court order was violated?

Details, details. Pshaw.

Originally Posted by TRUEGRITT

"Rule 11 allows the Supreme Court to bypass intermediate review “only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination.”

A law that transforms one-sixth of the U.S. economy should qualify as having “imperative public importance,” especially if parts of it would be difficult to undo. “Immediate determination” is vital because many of the law’s provisions are activated in 2011. “Costs are being incurred on a daily basis,” Mr. Cuccinelli told The Washington Times. “And the economy is howling for certainty right now.”


One costly provision beginning Jan. 1 requires health plans to provide “rebates” to consumers if less than 85 percent of the premiums are spent on “clinical services and quality.” This attempted straitjacket on the market is counterproductive. Major companies will be unable to afford to offer plans favored by many consumers that provide fewer benefits for smaller premiums. This rebate requirement was the main reason McDonald’s announced it would drop 30,000 people from its health plans - until the Obama administration, showing raw political favoritism, granted the burger giant a waiver. Not every company will be blessed with a waiver, however, and many companies that abandon such plans may be unable financially to reinstate them afterward."

Well that's certainly what one side is arguing. The DOJ is arguing otherwise. That's not the same thing the OP claimed, accusing the President of asking the SC to "hold off".

Originally Posted by pollyrobin

But, there will not be a reversal on appeal. Not
for the insurance mandate anyway.

Yes there will. For all the reasons outlined in the testimony of Charles Fried, former United States Solicitor General to President Ronald Reagan, who argued 25 cases in front of the Supreme Court. I'd say he can be considered a reputable authority on the subject.

"The objection that the mandate is an imposition on the individual, is an objection not to Congress's exceeding its power to lay down a rule for commerce, but to Congress's violating an individual liberty as guaranteed by the 5th Amendment. But the Jacobson [v the Commonwealth of Massachusetts] case, which has been settled precedent for more than one hundred years, shows conclusively that the mandate is not an unconstitutional imposition on individual liberty."