Virginia AG Asks SCOTUS to Rule on Health Bill

February 3rd, 2011 at 12:38 pm | 5 Comments |

| Print

The Hill reports:

Virginia’s top lawyer said the court should expedite a ruling to settle the confusion surrounding lawsuits against healthcare reform.

Virginia’s attorney general on Thursday joined the growing chorus calling for the Supreme Court to immediately decide if the healthcare law is constitutional.

“Currently, state governments and private businesses are being forced to expend enormous amounts of resources to prepare to implement a law that, in the end, may be declared unconstitutional,” said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R), who challenged the law in federal court.

Cuccinelli said the high court should expedite a ruling to settle the confusion surrounding the numerous lawsuits against healthcare reform.

“Regardless of whether you believe the law is constitutional or not, we should all agree that a prompt resolution of this issue is in everyone’s best interest,” he said in a statement.

On Monday, a federal judge in Florida struck down the entire reform law in a 26-state lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. In December, a federal judge ruled in favor of Cuccinelli’s challenge to the reform law’s requirement for individuals to purchase insurance by 2014, but the judge did not rule the entire law unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, two federal judges last year upheld the reform law. So far, the court rulings have been split by party lines. The two judges upholding the law were appointed by President Clinton, while the two ruling against the law were Republican appointees. More than a dozen lawsuits were thrown out in court on standing.

Click here to read more.

Recent Posts by FrumForum News



5 Comments so far ↓

  • baw1064

    Quick, before anything happens to Scalia!

  • busboy33

    I guess going thru the normal appeals process is not a hassale for citizens or buisnesses.

    Currently, state governments and private businesses are being forced to expend enormous amounts of resources to prepare to implement a law that, in the end, may be declared unconstitutional

    Yeah . . . that’s sort of true about EVERY law enacted. Doesn’t give you automatic cert, though. Get in line and do it properly, like a big boy.

  • Chris Balsz

    There’s nothing childish about going directly to the Supreme Court. The whole case boils down to Supreme Court interpretations of the Commerce Clause, and now Vinson has started an argument about Supreme Court interpretations of implied severability. Nothing the various appeals courts say about that is going to resolve those issues.

    • busboy33

      How is this different than every other federal case involving Constitutional questions (i.e.: almost all of them)? A split of opinion on interpretation is one of the only two things that the Appellate level of Jurisprudence is supposed to deal with (the other being a review of trial court’s for adherence to current standards).

      A disagreement about the legal justification for a law comes up all the time. The Appellate Court is there to solve all the problems they can to keep the Supremes from hearing thousands more cases than they already do.

      Citizens United also had a question as to the Constitutional underpinnings of a federal law . . . it didn’t get to go straight to the Supremes. Why should this?