Below is an article from Fox News dated March 14, 2011. (My comments are offset and in italics.)
White House Urges Supreme Court Not to Jump Into Health Care Law Cases Prematurely
The Obama administration told the Supreme Court
on Monday night it should stay away from a high-profile challenge to
the 2010 health care law until after a lower court has had a chance to
review the case.
Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal wrote,
"there is no basis for short-circuiting the normal course of appellate
review." Katyal also says Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's
case is problematic because he may lack sufficient standing to challenge
the health care law.
This is what happens when psuedo-conservatives betray their oath of office and IGNORE the Constitution they swore an oath to support and defend. That goes for Acting Solicitor General Katyal AND Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Since when does a sovereign State "lack" standing to challenge the Constitutionality of a federal law? Ask Virginia's AG why he filed Virginia's suit in district court instead of where the Constitution "mandates" it be filed, and he'll give excuses that rely solely on "case law," and usurpations against the Constitution he prefers to call "precedent."
Ask the Solicitor General to show you in the Constitution where the Supreme Court derives "appelate jurisdiction" over federal cases in which a "State" is a Party. He can't. It's not there.
What IS in the Constitution is the "mandate" that the Supreme Court hear cases in which a State is Party in the "original" hearing of the case, NOT on appeal. Cuccinelli claiming now that there's some since of urgency that didn't exist nearly a year ago when he filed his suit (in direct violation of his oath) in an inferior federal district court, is merely political gamesmanship. His actions speak much louder than his words.
The Supreme Court normally takes cases only
after they've been reviewed at least once by appellate judges. Virginia
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says that's not appropriate in this
instance.
In his filing last month, Cuccinelli said
there's a "palpable consensus" that the high court will ultimately have
to pass judgment on the merits of President Obama's health care law and
should do so without delay. Furthermore, Cuccinelli argues that his case
involves "pure issues of constitutional law" that appellate judges on
the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will be unable to definitively
resolve.
"Palpable consensus?" What about the "Constitutional mandate" in Article III, Section 2, Clause 2? The Framers of the Constitution came to the "palpable consensus" that the sovereign States they represented and that eventually became signatories and ratifiers of the "supreme Law of the Land" would have their Constitutional issues heard "exclusively" by the U.S. Supreme Court. For anyone to suggest otherwise is "misprision of treason," and to actually participate in such usurpations of the Constitution, in the words of Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall would be "treason to the Constitution." The problem is, We the People have become so ignorant of our Founding Documents, and so lazy and cowardly, we've allowed States' Rights to erode to such a point, that EVERY State official engaged in challenging a rogue federal government are going to the Supreme Court on bended knee, begging an audience with the King's Court.
Katyal says there is no question that the
case is of great public importance but uses the language of the court's
own rules to say it is not "one of the rare cases that justifies
deviation from normal appellate practice and require[s] immediate
determination in this court." Katyal points out that the Virginia case
and several others are already in the pipeline and little time may be
saved if the court were to jump in now.
Politicians from both parties have also expressed support for immediate high court review. Sen. Bill Nelson,
D-Fla. took to the Senate floor to champion the cause. Republican
governors recently sent a letter to Obama asking him to support
Virginia's efforts, writing, "we should not endure years of litigation
in the circuit courts, when the Supreme Court can promptly provide
finality."
Politicians "expressed support" for immediate high court review?" Where were these politicians when these cases were being filed (in direct conflict with the Constitution) in inferior district courts? Republican and Democrat governors alike should have sent a letter "demanding" this violation of States' Rights be halted, but no. None had the courage to uphold their oath, and We the People suffer for their cowardice.
The Supreme Court denied without comment a
similar request for expedited review made last year in another,
lower-profile health care challenge from California.
With the government arguing against
immediate consideration, most court observers think it is unlikely the
justices will grant Cuccinelli's request.
In December, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson
ruled that the health care law's regulation forcing people to buy
health insurance or face a penalty is unconstitutional. The government's
appeal seeking to vindicate Obama's signature legislative
accomplishment is currently pending before the Fourth Circuit. Oral
arguments are scheduled for May 10 in Richmond, Va.
For many years the Fourth Circuit held a
reputation as one of the most conservative federal appellate courts in
the country. But in the past two years, Obama has appointed four of the
court's 15 members, thus diminishing that reputation.
If the high court does not immediately take
the case, the three Fourth Circuit judges that will hear the appeal will
not be known until the morning of the arguments. END STORY...
Where is the 4th Estate... the media? Even Fox News refuses to champion the Constitution. They are part of the problem as well. What about Heritage, Cato, Judicial Watch, Limbaugh, Beck, or any of the other alleged "watchdogs" of the Constitution? Where are they? That's easy to answer, but sad to realize. They are in the camp that case law and precedent trump the Constitution. Have any of them read the U.S. Constitution's Article V? Maybe, but they would rather shrug their shoulders at the Constitution, and continue to collect 30 pieces of silver via ratings-generated dollars. They refuse to ask the tough questions of Cuccinelli, or Bondi, or Brewer. It's the Constitution, stupid! Read, Forrest, Read!!
I didn't dub the open letters we wrote last August to Arizona Governor Brewer, Virginia A.G. Cuccinelli, and SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts the "scarlet letters" simply to be coy. Read them yourself at ReJoinorDie.com and then look at what all of these alleged champions of States' Rights have said over the past several months as they clamored for "face-time" with the media to discuss each and every little utterance from these inferior courts over issues they have ZERO Constitutional authority to rule on. We simply cannot trust even the alleged constitutional scholars to sound the alarm, or ask the tough questions of these political animals. Greta? Laura? Rush? Glenn? Herman? Shame on all of you.
Ask these pundits why they don't believe the Constitution trumps bad precedent? Ask these pundits why they continue to pander to traitors to the Constitution. Ask yourself why YOU keep electing spineless public servants? Tyrants have taken over, and We the People will continue to be enslaved by their treasonous actions until we get educated, and demand better.
To quote my favorite Statesman,
"When you find you have scoundrels and scalawags in office, you need to turn them out, and you need to keep turning them out until you send honorable men to Washington." -N.C. Governor Zebulon Vance. October 21, 1876.
Subscribe