This makes no sense to me, except, maybe, politically. Why won't the President support getting the Affordable Healthcare Act (aka Obamacare) to the USSC? The uncertainty can't be good economically. It's unpopular politically (at best 50/50). It's lost a couple of lower level court cases. So, why oppose it going to the USSC? It will go there eventually. Why not now?

The justices turned down a request by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a leading opponent of the law, to resolve questions about its constitutionality quickly. The Obama administration opposed Cuccinelli's plea.

Illumine me. I can't see an upside to the Administration's course of action.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:Stalling, until it actually takes effect, and the people get further addicted to the crack... I mean another entitlement.

Except, that won't be until 2014--and it's got to hit the Supreme Court by then, doesn't it?

Beyond that, whether it's in effect or not, it's Constitutionality has to be decided by the USSC. So, is there any advantage to anyone in waiting? From what I understand it's likely to be next year. Suppose it gets struck down, hypothetically, wouldn't that be difficult for Obama to recover from? So, why take the chance?

Guys, I don't think this is an Obama administration decision. The USSC is conscious that there are a few different appeals still working their way through the courts and typically the USSC prefers to wait for the appellate judges to form their opinions first.

Also, the USSC quite often chooses to wait until a law takes effect prior to hearing the case. With the individual mandate being the crux of the argument against this law coming into effect in 2014, we may have to wait until that time comes closer.

There's no way this is not heard for three years. We've already had 5 decisions on this case.

If the White House and Justice Department weren't trying to stop it from going to the USSC, it would be there. Billions will be potentially wasted. Trillions are waiting on the sidelines. Isn't certainty a good thing.

I don't disagree with you, Steve. I am just stating tendencies.

Actually guys, from what I understand Virginia's case is actually the weaker of the two cases that are moving through the courts. Therefore, it could just be that the Court is waiting for the stronger case (the one heard by Vinson) to make its way through the process.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Actually guys, from what I understand Virginia's case is actually the weaker of the two cases that are moving through the courts. Therefore, it could just be that the Court is waiting for the stronger case (the one heard by Vinson) to make its way through the process.

Thanks for the insight.

I still don't understand why the Administration would be fighting this.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:IRussell may be right about the strength of the two cases. What's your source?

I have actually read it in a couple of different places. However, most recently over at The Volokh Conspiracy which is a which is a Blog on legal issues that has a bit of a Libertarian bent to it.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:IRussell may be right about the strength of the two cases. What's your source?

I have actually read it in a couple of different places. However, most recently over at The Volokh Conspiracy which is a which is a Blog on legal issues that has a bit of a Libertarian bent to it.

Could it be, or are you indeed saying, that the "strength" is more on the writing of the judge, rather than the basis of the lawsuit?

Doctor Fate wrote:Could it be, or are you indeed saying, that the "strength" is more on the writing of the judge, rather than the basis of the lawsuit?

The strength is based on the lawsuit. Who has the stronger case. Between Cuccinelli and the 26 state suit, the stronger case is the latter. I believe it resolves around the issues of standing and arugments made.

Here is a good article from George Mason Law School Prof Ilyia Somin on the (un)constitutionality of the Insurance mandate.