Because it cuts down on the number of cases that the supreme court gets petitioned for, and gives them a basis to decide whether or not they will even hear a case. The supreme court already gets petitioned for around 5000 cases per year and only has time to hear a fraction of them. That number would jump through the roof if we started fast-tracking cases straight to the supreme court.
This isn’t a normal case. SCOTUS will hear this case, you know it will, so “cuts down on number of cases” is a straw man argument.
This is completely irrelevant because it is a different situation altogether. It had nothing to do with a lawsuit alleging a law was unconstitutional.
You just contradicted yourself (above) and made my point for me. BTW, I don’t want to belabor Bush V Gore but it had everything to do with the constitutionality of laws.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that having it overturned is the only possible outcome.
I’m no different than most. I think it’ll be a 5/4 decision with Kennedy casting the deciding vote. I expect Kennedy will decide it is unconstitutional.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that no damage will be done to our economy, state budgets or federal budgets if the law is found unconstitutional and overturned 2 or 3 years down the road. The damage to our budgets and economy will be massive if that happens. Higher state and federal deficits combined with wasted private company expenditures are the last things we need right now.
And? This is true of most cases that end up at the supreme court.
Most cases that end up at the supreme court won’t cause as much damage to the entire nation if they are found unconstitutional as this one will. We are talking about 1/6 of the US economy being totally reformed during the worst recession in US history.
Clearly the states that filed suit against the healthcare reform bill felt differently. Because the cases involved were filed by a state and not a person, they would have fallen under original jurisdiction, and could have been filed directly with the supreme court. Clearly the states felt it was advantageous not to do so.
The states felt differently when? You do realize this thread is based upon a post Florida ruling right? My poll isn’t asking what the states should have done when the law was first passed. Timeline is important and the Florida ruling is the basis of this discussion.
It would also be possible to fast-track the law straight to the supreme court with a writ of certiorari before judgment. As far as I can tell none of the states involved have even filed one (though I could be wrong about this, I'm having trouble finding information on it)
Sure, the States might file a writ of certiorari now that the biggest court ruling is in. Thing is, the SCOTUS might reject it unless both parties agree and file it together. If Team Obama and the States agree that the constitutionality of this issue should be decided sooner rather than later, we could have a SCOTUS ruling within 90 days. Why do you think it would be a bad thing to remove questions and doubts about where 1/6 of the US economy will be in 2 or 3 years?
Whether you think so or not, there are clearly reasons why the states involved have not gone straight to the supreme court.
Sure there are. They knew they needed to wait for the 26 state ruling in Florida and they also know the SCOTUS isn’t likely to cross the POTUS by taking up the case early unless he agrees. That’s the point you refuse to think about because you are obviously so politically loyal to your party that you refuse to ask why the POTUS isn’t asking for this to be decided in the SCOTUS asap so we can all get some clarity on where this nation is going from here. It isn’t rocket science. If Obama agreed, the states would file the writ of certiorari and it would be on the SCOTUS roster within 30-60 days.
Let's get something straight here. I don't revere the process and I don't think it's sacred. I think it's a good idea, but that's about as far as it goes. I just don't see anything about the healthcare bill, above and beyond any of the other cases that the supreme court hears, that is of such dire importance that it should go straight to the supreme court, especially when the states involved in the case don't seem to want it to either.
The states want it to go to the supreme court (asap) now because their case has been heard and ruled upon. Team Obama is dragging it out for political reasons (re-election). If you don’t think 1/6 of the US economy being thrown into doubt during the greatest recession in US history or the private, state and federal dollars that are already being spent to try and conform to the dictates of this law are enough to desire quick and decisive answers, you aren’t a true American, you are a political hack.
There is no reason to oppose timely constitutional clarity on this issue unless you are a political hack who has sold his soul to a particular political party. If Obama agrees with the states that this issue should be cleared up asap, it will be done within 90 days and we can all move forward as a nation knowing what path we are following.
