I don’t see this as a story about the media. It’s merely a media story about a political talking point. This actually fairs worse for Obama as I believe the decision will be decided closer to the 2012 elections. Gas prices, health care ads, a third war, a stagnant economy, bad home values/sales, etc.. How will the liberal press treat him then?

That said, this isn’t a shock reading. It’s normal that the Supreme Court wants more court opinions. Cuccinelli is brilliant and I can’t wait for the Supreme Court case. :)

All good things ( repeal of ObamaCare ) are worth waiting for. It’s just a shame that millions upon millions of dollars we’ve got to borrow from China will be wasted before this travesty of justice is overturned.

Rightly, the Supreme Court historically does not hear issues that are not in effect. Enforcement of the clause requiring everyone to buy insurance does not take effect until 2014.

I guess you folks would have to accept that the health care law finally passed. Ahhhhhhhh, what next, civil disobedience?

CAconservative said:
Rightly, the Supreme Court historically does not hear issues that are not in effect. Enforcement of the clause requiring everyone to buy insurance does not take effect until 2014.

lololol….is that your excuse???…if you knew this why did coochinelli file the case???…just face facts wingnut….you challenged Obama and got ya punk ass kicked again….you wingnuts are a mess….NOW GET THEM DAMN EXCHANGES UP AND RUNNING LIKE OBAMA TOLD YOU TO OR FACE THE RATH OF THE US GOVERNMENT….ITS JAILTIME IDIOTS….ENUFF OF YOUR BULLSHIT……And while youre at it pucker them lips up and give Obama a much deserved kiss right on his black ass….DUMBASS

That does rather put to rest the argument that the law is unconstitutional.
That would be the only reason for a summary ruling.

Now watch the O’Bots come out and claim this as an Obama victory….they certainly are a predictable bunch….not very inteligent….but very predictable.

The Supreme Court is shirking its duty. They have let our Campaigner-in-Chief off the hook and this may have let him get re-elected.

Colorado_Conservative said:
Now watch the O’Bots come out and claim this as an Obama victory….they certainly are a predictable bunch….not very inteligent….but very predictable.</blockquote

Now watch the dittoheads, Beckerwoods and baggers try to spin this into a defeat for Obama.

nobody won anything

skyfet said:
I guess you folks would have to accept that the health care law finally passed. Ahhhhhhhh, what next, civil disobedience?

The law passed months ago. The future Supreme Court win will come in another year – prime for 2012. :)

Don’t try to mess with precedence. :)

WCinWI said:
The law passed months ago. The future Supreme Court win will come in another year – prime for 2012. :)

Don’t try to mess with precedence. :)

My lovely, what you’ve espoused is hilarious. You should try to be a comedian, you might have a hidden talent.

skyfet said:
My lovely, what you’ve espoused is hilarious. You should try to be a comedian, you might have a hidden talent.

No, precedence is a legal term. Sheesh.

Joseph Glackin said:
That does rather put to rest the argument that the law is unconstitutional.
That would be the only reason for a summary ruling.

How can you say that? It’s not been decided one way or the other. I believe that is the question that is being asked.

“…In December, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson in Richmond declared that the individual mandate, the heart of the sweeping legislation, is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Florida came to the same conclusion in January in striking down the law in its entirety.

Both rulings have been put on hold pending appeals….”

Personally, I think this is a good thing. While we all want to get this argument out of the way, giving the country another few months will give everyone proper time to rest and strengthen their vocal chords. Once the supreme court begins debating this thing, we are gonna want to be good and ready to scream at each other extra loud.

Oh the other hand, there’s that whole stability and predictability thing that millions of people are lacking, which is tying up untold billions of dollars in economic activity. Also, no screaming in SCOTUS. Bummer, huh?

ProObamaAgenda said:
lololol….is that your excuse???…if you knew this why did coochinelli file the case???…just face facts wingnut….you challenged Obama and got ya punk ass kicked again….you wingnuts are a mess….NOW GET THEM DAMN EXCHANGES UP AND RUNNING LIKE OBAMA TOLD YOU TO OR FACE THE RATH OF THE US GOVERNMENT….ITS JAILTIME IDIOTS….ENUFF OF YOUR BULLSHIT……And while youre at it pucker them lips up and give Obama a much deserved kiss right on his black ass….DUMBASS

You might be the dumbest son of a bitch on the internet. You’re certainly top 5. How did we get so lucky as to be graced with such profound and aggressive ignorance?

tiredoftherunaround said:
How can you say that? It’s not been decided one way or the other. I believe that is the question that is being asked.

Joe is in the Top 20. Wanting things to be true is close enough for them to become one of his facts. The case will obviously be decided by SCOTUS, they’re just not going to fast track it.

This story has nothing to do with media or pundits.
I know it’s juicy but try to maintain some focus on this site.
It’s what makes this place so charming. :)

WCinWI said:
No, precedence is a legal term. Sheesh.

Sure is. Although this version of SCOTUS doesn’t respect it.
Still, they might not to go into the history books as the five witches who boiled up the New Deal in their kettle after 75 years of Court support.
I said before, the only reason for a summary decision is if the Court believes the law unconstitutional.
They don’t.

ProObimboAgenda:

Your attributing the Supreme Courts reluctance to hear an issue that is not in effect, as a win for Obimbo? Maybe you should ask yourself why the Supreme Court would bother itself with a non-existent legal case. By the time this winds it’s way through the lower Appellate Courts, this issue will probably be implemented and the Supreme Court will hear the case. More than likely, the lower will side with the states and find that the government cannot compel us to buy insurance. That is of course, just plain commonsense but then, that might be eluding you as well.

skyfart:

Your constantly grasping at non-existent straws, why is that? The Supreme Court decided to not hear a non-existent issue. No one is being made to buy insurance until 2014. The Court is simply allowing this issue to run it’s course. Congress could in the meantime change the wording in the bill to exclude forced involvement and then the issue becomes a mute point. Why are you not getting this?!

ProObamaAgenda said:
….NOW GET THEM DAMN EXCHANGES UP AND RUNNING LIKE OBAMA TOLD YOU TO OR FACE THE RATH OF THE US GOVERNMENT….ITS JAILTIME IDIOTS….ENUFF OF YOUR BULLSHIT

What’s with all the caps? Or is that just the echo you get from having your head up Obama’s asshole?

The Court isn’t shirking, evading, or promoting anything.

They’re taking the safe route with this very hot button issue. Do it right, do it by the numbers. If they jumped on this and decided against the On=bama Administration (which they will when they hear it) then they would be accused of partisanship.

Better to play it the way they are.

By the way, to ProObamaAgenda:

Way to think things through, champ.

Joseph Glackin said:
I said before, the only reason for a summary decision is if the Court believes the law unconstitutional.

It’s not a summary judgment, genius. They simply decided not to fast track the case.

CAconservative said:
skyfart:

Your constantly grasping at non-existent straws, why is that? The Supreme Court decided to not hear a non-existent issue. No one is being made to buy insurance until 2014. The Court is simply allowing this issue to run it’s course. Congress could in the meantime change the wording in the bill to exclude forced involvement and then the issue becomes a mute point. Why are you not getting this?!

I think I may have touched a freaking nerve.

Pablo says:
It’s not a summary judgment, genius. They simply decided not to fast track the case.

……………………………………..
True, but this also means, this is “NOT” a pressing issue! you can spin it, but it’s not!

Pablo said:
It’s not a summary judgment, genius. They simply decided not to fast track the case.

Pebbles. Learn to read. Didn’t say it was summary. Said the court COULD issue summary IF they thought the law unconstitutional, otherwise were best off letting…… NEVER MIND! too many BIG words, I guess.
Back under your rock.

Joseph Glackin said:
Pebbles. Learn to read. Didn’t say it was summary. Said the court COULD issue summary IF they thought the law unconstitutional, otherwise were best off letting…… NEVER MIND! too many BIG words, I guess.
Back under your rock.

Sounds “Kafkaesque.” Go read “Before the Law.” It’s the same old song for this writ. The wheels grind slowly. Functus non compunctus.

Joseph Glackin said:
Pebbles. Learn to read. Didn’t say it was summary. Said the court COULD issue summary IF they thought the law unconstitutional, otherwise were best off letting…… NEVER MIND! too many BIG words, I guess.
Back under your rock.

No, SCOTUS NEVER issues summary judgment. The closest they get is denying certiorari, which is to say they deny review. Appellate courts review the decisions of lower courts. Summary judgment does not come into play.

You really think the Court could or would just declare a law unconstitutional without hearing argument? You, sir, are a moron.

david r said:
Sounds “Kafkaesque.” Go read “Before the Law.” It’s the same old song for this writ. The wheels grind slowly. Functus non compunctus.

It sounds like someone’s been watching too much TV, actually. Kafka was clever. Joe is a stump.

Delays in bringing a case to trial cost both sides money. The plantiffs (We the People) are not as well financed as the defendants (the -0bama regime). All the defendants have to do is cause enough delays until the plantiffs run out of money. The defendants will never run out of money because they can print more as needed. What we’re seeing here is a tyrannical government in action–in the action of foisting something off on the American people that they do not want! If -0bamacare were such a great thing, why have all the unions opted out of it and why has the Federal government excluded themselves from it?