Thanks to some savvy legal line jumping by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). The Foundry:
The Department of Justice (DOJ) had announced on Monday that it was not going to ask all 11 judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to review en banc the August 12 decision of a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit that found the individual mandate unconstitutional. This opened up a path to an appeal by DOJ to the Supremes.
However, with this petition, the NFIB jumped ahead of Eric Holder’s slow-moving DOJ (which until Monday had done everything it could to slow-walk this case filed by 26 states and the NFIB). The NFIB is obviously not appealing the three-judge panel’s opinion about the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate. But the NFIB is appealing the portion of the panel’s decision that held that the unconstitutional individual mandate could be severed from the Obamacare legislation.
The NFIB is asking the Court to overrule this holding, since “Congress itself deemed [the mandate] ‘essential’ to the Act’s new insurance regulations.” Given that the 11th and 6th Circuits have issued “directly conflicting final judgments about the facial constitutionality of [Obamacare’s] mandate,” the case is one that the Court should obviously take up given its interest in eliminating conflicting opinions in the courts of appeal.
What also differentiates this particular case from the many other lawsuits that have been filed against Obamacare is the “all star” lineup of Supreme Court litigators that the NFIB and the 26 states have lined up to argue their case before the Supreme Court. It includes Michael Carvin, a former DOJ official who has argued (and won) numerous cases before the Court; Gregory Katsas, a former DOJ official who was a clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas; Kevin Marshal, another former DOJ official and Thomas clerk; Hashim Mooppan, a former Justice Antonin Scalia clerk; and Randy Barnett, a nationally recognized constitutional scholar and professor at Georgetown.
[…]
The government lawyers in the DOJ’s Office of the Solicitor General who will be arguing the constitutionality of Obamacare will have their work cut out for them.
By the way: Among the states not filing, Rich Lowry and Ann Coulter and Jen Rubin? New Jersey.
Guess somebody was busy making a youtube video, or polishing off a sausage calzone, or sharing a sit-down dinner with Obama and the ChiComs.
Meanwhile, certain candidates — and potential candidates — have been railing against ObamaCare from day 1.
Here’s the thing: when Christie announces once and for all that he isn’t running — and then throws his not-insignificant weight behind Mitt Romney — many of the “conservatives” today begging for him to run are going to have to live with having been exposed for who they are.
Christie is a Northeastern Party Republican — a guy who backed Mike Castle, a guy who favors comprehensive immigration reform, a guy who believes we need to “defer to the scientists” on global warming and climate change, a dead giveaway that he has certain kinds of consensus science in mind.
There’s a reason the establishment is wooing him so strongly: they fear RomneyCare may really hurt Romney against Obama. Simple as that.
I have no earthly idea why Ann Coulter slavers over this guy. But then, I have no idea how she could have ever allowed Bill Maher to unsheath his bent little prick around her, either.
No accounting for taste, I guess.
Why do I have the feeling that as the ObamaCare monster is shackled and killed by SCOTUS, we’ll find the usual suspects on Capitol Hill burying their record of advocating for it just like they buried their early support for toppling Saddam?
Why do I have the feeling
A tingling feeling?
Up your leg?
Shame on you!
comprehensive immigration reform wouldn’t be the end of the world … the whole immigration thing is dwarfed dwarfed dwarfed by the implications of the climate change fraud what fat boy embraces and by the rape rape rape of our health cares what fat boy is too much the pussy to oppose.
I secretly suspect it’s a shared Catholicism, but that’s really only a guess.
CIR is line-jumping, and it runs counter to the rule of law that we rely on in a civil society. It matters.
Is it a deal breaker for me? Probably not. But he’s got other problems.
ok that’s fair enough I think
Now, watch the Wise Latina make sure she does not recuse herself on this one, setting a precedent for all who follow…
You mean Kagan, LTC? She’s really morally obligated to.
Whoops – correct, Pablo. Of course she is – but I do not think she will.
She says it’s because he takes the fight to the unions, which she deems the present evil empire in need of ash heap relegation. Every time Hannity identified one of Christie’s deviations from conservatism, she replied that Reagan legalized abortion in California but he was right about defeating the RED MENACE.
I don’t know. Maybe she’s just got a thing for guys she thinks capable of humiliating her in the sack —or something.
Easily corrected by a filibuster proof majority and an impeachment proceeding
IIRC, Ernst, the determination of a conflict is left solely to the Justice in question. It’s not actionable.
Reagan instituted no-fault divorce in CA too. What better way to destroy the family than to invalidate any and all marriage contracts?
Reagan instituted no-fault divorce in CA too.
And closed the asylums as well. Somebody tell Coulter. She’ll sound less repetitive.