Thursday, February 03, 2011
Quick S.Ct. Review of Va. ObamaCare case?
The state of Virginia, which won at the U.S. District court level in its challenge to ObamaCare, is seeking immediate Supreme Court review of that case. This is a somewhat unusual procedure as cases usually go to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals before going to the Supreme Court. This case is separate from the recent Florida decision also striking down the law. Given the importance of the issues, quick review by the Supreme Court seems warranted. Stay tuned to see if the Court will grant Virginia's motion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is there a provision exclusive to states that SCOTUS is the only appropriate court to address their federal suit?
ReplyDeleteThere is no such provision. The Supreme Court does not have to allow litigants to bypass the usual steps. It's completely up to the Court. The Court rarely grants such petitions. However, I think a good case can be made to grant this one.
ReplyDeleteYour answer is appreciated. I was reading comments about absolute SCOTUS power under the proposed constitution from the anti-federalist, Brutus. And how such undermined states' sovereignty. For this reason, the tenth amendment proves evermore critical to our inherited rights and freedoms. It's shameful this added piece has been greatly subverted by heavy handed socially progressive administrations like Woodrow Wilson's, et al.
ReplyDelete44: Thanks for your comments. Judicial review and Supreme Court supremacy were established in 1803 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v Madison. It is not directly provided for in the Constitution, but Marshall's explanation of it is very convincing. There has to be some institution with the final word. I think most of us would trust the Supreme Court over Congress or the President. There was surprisingly little objection to judicial review from many of the leading lights at the time. Not surprisingly Jefferson objected, as he was the Pres. at the time. Jefferson, would have opted for legislative supremacy but I think that position is unsupportable. Anti-federalists objected as it vested unreviewable authority in a federal institution. Even if flawed, it is way too late to overrule a precedent that is 207 years old, has been cited hundreds of times by the Supreme Court, and was decided by a prominent figure from the era of the Founding Fathers. Yes, Marshall was a federalist, but he was, lawfully, the Chief Justice. Finally, without judicial supremacy, this country would not be nearly as free as it is. (e.g. starting with the Alien and Sedition Acts which were thankfully repealed by Congress)once Congress changed hands. Don't get me wrong, the Supreme Court has botched it many times (e.g. Dred Scott)but the Court itself or an amendment have usually bailed us out. Anyone opposed to judicial review should propose a constitutional amendment. To my knowledge no such Amendment has ever gotten out of Congress. Apparently Congress can live with it. I don't recall any strong movement in the states for such a Constitutional Amendment.
ReplyDeleteJohn:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your intelligent comments. If possible please send links with you posts so we can all share in your research results. I encourage all poster to do likewise. Thanks again. I will try to add more links myself.
Wilco.
ReplyDeleteKetcham, Ralph, ed. The anti-federalist papers and the constitutional convention debates. Penguin Putman, New York, 1986.
My copy is a Signet classic paperback printed in 2003.