Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed
Posted at 3:52 PM ET, 12/13/2010

Cantor, McDonnell call for expedited Supreme Court review of health-care law

By Rosalind S. Helderman

U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) are calling on the Obama administration to join Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) in fast-tracking Supreme Court consideration of the constitutionality of the federal health-care law.

Those statements are some of a staggering volume of reaction within Virginia to today's ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson that a central provision of the law requiring that individuals obtain health insurance by 2014 is unconstitutional. The federal government can appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. But Cuccinelli has asked them to consider joining him in requesting immediate Supreme Court review.

At an afternoon news conference, Cuccinelli said bypassing the appeals court would relieve the country -- and its massive health-care market -- of the uncertainty of a continued lengthy legal battle. Already, Americans face a confused landscaped including 25 challenges to the law. Some have been dismissed on standing; two other judges have found the same provision of the law to be constitutional.

Cuccinelli said he would consider asking the Supreme Court to take the case even without Justice Department cooperation, but he has made no decisions on the issue.

In a statement, McDonnell said he has asked other governors and governors-elect to sign on to a letter to the Justice Department asking for their cooperation. McDonnell called the legal decision a "victory for the constitution" but said executives like him need a final resolution of the issue as they move ahead with implementing the complicated law. "There must be certainty and finality in order for our businesses and citizens to both know and adhere to the law."

Cantor pledged that the new Republican-led House of Representatives would pass a repeal of the act next year, but in the meantime also called for expedited review. "In this challenging environment, we must not burden our states, employers and families with the costs and uncertainty created by this unconstitutional law, and we must take all steps to resolve this issue immediately," he said.

Expedited review of the Virginia case would have the affect of causing it to leapfrog other challenges, including a suit filed jointly by 20 states in Florida.

Advocates of the law downplayed the importance of the Virginia decision, noting that Hudson is the only judge so far to rule the mandate unconstitutional and that he chose not to strike down the entire law. Democratic Party of Virginia Chairman Brian Moran accused Cuccinelli of using the suit as a political springboard while undermining reforms to the health-care market that would benefit Virginians.

"I urge the Obama administration to do what our grand-standing Attorney General refuses to do: stand up for families in Virginia and around the country who do not have access to quality and affordable health care by continuing to fight this battle in court," he said in a statement.

By Rosalind S. Helderman  | December 13, 2010; 3:52 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Cox selects Gilbert for House deputy majority leader
Next: Moran, McAuliffe headline event for Richmond Democrats


Republicans can't stand the thought that all Americans might have insurance coverage.

They're concerned about fairness to the insurance companies.

What a pack of rats the GOP are.

Posted by: lindalovejones | December 13, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Nice "judge":

Henry E. Hudson, the federal judge in Virginia who just ruled health care reform unconstitutional, owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform.

Ho hum. The GOP tries to screw us yet again. Every single day they try to destroy America a little more, bit by bit.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 13, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

We all know that if the U.S. Supreme Court as presently composed hears this case, it will side with District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson. There is no rational reason for the Justice Department to agree to getting this case before the U.S. Supreme Court now. It's only hope for winning at before the Supremes is for a change in the composition of the Court. So why rush? On the other hand, any Obama nominee will face a filibuster as the Republicans continues their campaign to make his Presidency fail.

On an entirely different note, doesnt' anybody copy edit these articles. "Expedited review of the Virginia case would have the affect of causing it to leapfrog other challenges, including a suit filed jointly by 20 states in Florida." -- that should be "effect" -- what a sorry state online journalism has become.

Posted by: dl49 | December 13, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

The Obama administration isn't going to send this directly to the Supreme Court...LOL.

Instead they are going to let it work its way through the appeals court system which will take YEAR all the while implementing the law.

They can do that because the individual mandate doesn't even go into affect until 2014.

Posted by: maritza1 | December 13, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

So where were all of these people when the previous two or three rulings were handed down ... finding the bill to be constitutional? How come no press conferences then? This is not the first time a court has ruled on this statute, but you wouldn't know it from today's news.

Posted by: fmjk | December 13, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I support the public option so i hope they do find it to be unconstitutional. Obama just made it harder to pass the public option later down the road for any democrat. Don't blame this on the GOP the democrats had the majority and failed to make the case for the public option.

Posted by: Major2100 | December 13, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Since the majority of the Supreme Court has been bought and paid for by the GOPutzes and corporate America it will really be nothing more than a study in foregone conclusions. The Republicans don't give a rats ass about anyone but the rich anyway, never have (since Ronnie Scumbag Reagan) never will. What a disgrace.

Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | December 13, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

After The 8 Years Of The Bush/Cheney Disaster, Now You Get Mad?

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate Energy policy and push us to invade Iraq.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn't get mad when we spent over 800 billion (and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn't get mad when Bush borrowed more money from foreign sources than the previous 42 Presidents combined.

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars in cash just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn't get mad when Bush embraced trade and outsourcing policies that shipped 6 million American jobs out of the country.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
You didn't get mad when Bush rang up 10 trillion dollars in combined budget and current account deficits.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.

You didn't get mad when we gave people who had more money than they could spend, the filthy rich, over a trillion dollars in tax breaks.

You didn't get mad with the worst 8 years of job creations in several decades.

You didn't get mad when over 200,000 US Citizens lost their lives because they had no health insurance.

You didn't get mad when lack of oversight and regulations from the Bush Administration caused US Citizens to lose 12 trillion dollars in investments, retirement, and home values.

You finally got mad when a black man was elected President and decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, job losses by the millions, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, and the worst economic disaster since 1929 are all okay with you, but helping fellow Americans who are sick...Oh, Hell No!!

Posted by: sun52shine | December 13, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Well if the case goes to the Supreme Court I can see Justice Bryer now citing the healthcare law imposed by Kahless the Unforgettable after he united the Klingons by defeating the tyrant Molor in battle.

Bryer has made it clear that foreign law is perfectly acceptable to refer to in making Supreme Court decisions. Why not "other world law"? A strict interpretation of the constitution as written by the framers is so quaint, so 18th and 19th century.

Posted by: tmonahan54 | December 13, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

It is exciting that the new house majority leader Cantor (what?) declares they will repeal the healthcare bill. I wonder if he is aware of the role the Senate plays in this process? Do you think he is aware of the executive office veto? Lastly, is Rep. Cantor really powerful enough to speak for every other representative of congress? Perhaps the incoming "tea party" republicans want to think for themselves? Maybe not.

Posted by: NewThoughts | December 13, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

of course this isn't an activist judge. what hypocrits.

Posted by: blinwilly | December 13, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

It is not withing Cantor nor McConnel's authority to advise the court system. It is the President's domain to pursue the government case. The judge saw no reason to issue an injunction so what's the rush? At present this latest opinion carries no more weight than the district court rulings upholding the law. It is so far the only ruling favorable to the GOP position. I predict SCOTUS upholds the law. Let's go through the process. The GOP continually trying to short circuit the judicial process shows a disrespect for the Constitution. Besides these two boneheads still don't have a meaningful health care reform proposal. Let's see a meaningful GOP proposal scored and analysed by the CBO first. We've have been and are still waiting.

Posted by: chucko2 | December 13, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

To argue against the mandate you are in essence saying your fine with those who go to the ER for 'free care', thats what you will do you say. Your fine with welfare recipients getting 'free care'? Your fine with tax payers paying many times the cost of care for your care, I am not fine with paying for you to get last resort ER care. I don't want to pay for you because your selfishly refusing to pay your share up front.
Your not really informed then about the sad state of ER care in America. But your willing to adversely impact a system to avoid responsibility. Your not willing to support or improve the failing ER systems and hospital systems. And if you think those ER docs are going to fill up a bag with drug samples and bandages 'for free' for you, not so. You will have to pay out of your own pocket at market rate for your Rx's without the cost rules that keep them from charging the insured huge mark ups. think your going to the same hospital in that nice part of town, not so fast if you not insured. They will do the least care possible and deliver you to the streets as soon as possible, without you getting what you need in care. If your fine without insurance then don't sign up for medicaid, donate your social security money and pass up on medicare. Stay out of my hospital if you can't pay, I don't want my community to suffer any more than it has because people who could do better refused to for no reason other than to hurt a political opponent. ER's are closing in many parts of the country under the wait of the uninsured and republicans are fighting to join them to avoid a mandate. They want to starve and send to the streets those who cannot pay for food or rent or medications. And when they could improve the system, they choose not to.

Posted by: siren1 | December 13, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Cantor, McDonnell and Cuccinelli should be in charge of picking up dog poop on the VA state house grounds. Their opinion about anything that matters to Americans is irrelevant. They would sell their souls(if they had one) for corporate America and screw the average American.

Posted by: kinsman_bob | December 13, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

So the extremist Republican party wants to get rid of the mandate, huh?

Republicans are playing a game with the Affordable Care Act health reform, trying to capitalize on public antagonism towards the individual mandate. They want to cut the funds for enforcing the mandate, which health insurers assert with good reason is a necessary companion to the requirement that they provide coverage without respect to pre-existing conditions.

Without a mandate, insurers might go broke from people who sign up for insurance only when they discover that they are sick.

I have a suggestion: The Dms should let the Republicans win this one -- if they dare, which they won't.


The Dems should refuse to give ground on the bar against pre-existing conditions, but if Republicans want to bankrupt their corporate insurance industry overlords by eliminating the mandate, let them go ahead and try and let the insurers be the ones to explain why they are wrong. The insurers have to money to pay for spiffy ads, after all.

So, let's call the Republicans' bluff on this. If the Republicans want to see required pre-existing conditions coverage without a mandate, let them pass it. If they want to destroy their billionaire corporate patrons in the Big Health Insurance Industry who helped elect them, every last Democrat should abstain on the vote. Hell, announce ahead of time that that's what we'll do. Do it during the lame-duck session, even! Let this bold Republican policy of no pre-existing condition clauses without a mandate be the insurance companies' reward.

But, of course, the Republicans won't actually dare to destroy their Corporate Health Insurance Industry patrons/overlords. So they will have to vote down their own bill. Let the Republicans be exposed to the public as faux-populist frauds the are -- or else they can shut up about the mandate. We win either way. Either the law won't pass, or it will be repealed within days.


Posted by: DrainYou | December 13, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

I thought from the headline the GOP was calling for a review of the Supreme Court.

After some of their ideologically-charged decisions the last few years I thought the members of the court needed recalls, I mean reviews, too.

We have at least two maybe three unqualified bench-sitters plus a couple right-wing political activists masquerading as "impartial" judges.

As for the health care reform bill, 14 other judges had thrown this argument out. But the regressive anarchists kept bringing it up before judges until they found one of their who believe democracy is best served by denying people health care.

So, the regressives stop the health care reform bill. Now what? These people are already trying to dispose of 2.8 million unemployed Americans - most of the republicans - and their families. So, if they manage to destroy a public health care system that would cover millions more - most of them republicans - will they be happy? No.

The ball is in your court, Eric Cantor. Take your hands out of your pockets and do something you have never done during your public "service" career - suggest a viable solution to a real social problem. Tax cuts for the rich and destroying education doesn't get it every time.

Posted by: BigTrees | December 13, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Republicans campaigned on jobs but their only real concern is stealing American's health care.

Posted by: lemondog | December 13, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Socialism, it's not for America, anymore!

Posted by: Unaffiliated1 | December 13, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Cantor, McDonnell call for expedited Supreme Court review of health-care law


Oh I get it now.

Cantor, McConnell, and McDonnell are all playing "bad cop" to John Boneheads good cop.

If Bonehead and his minions really gave a crap about all the little children in the world, then he and his minions would leave HC Reform alone.

Wasn't it just last night that Bonehead was on 60 minutes boo hooing and crying about all of the "little children" in the country growing up without the basic necessities of life in America like healthy food, healthy drinking water, a quality education, and basic Health care.

Boo Hoo Boo Boo.

Of course they will grow up with out the basic necessities in life when Bonehead sits in front on the television camera and lies through his teeth with vapor rubbed tears running down his cheeks every 5 minutes, while his minions are busy running up to their Conservative Supreme Court to "repeal" basic social programs for Americans citizens, i.e., poor, Elderly, Single parents with children, et al.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | December 13, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Turns out that Judge Hudson is part owner of a republican consulting firm that spent last year lobbying against passage of the act. That explains a lot.

Posted by: lemondog | December 13, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Turns out that Judge Hudson is part owner of a republican consulting firm that spent last year lobbying against passage of the act. That explains a lot.

Posted by: lemondog


Isn't that a "conflict of interest"?

Posted by: lcarter0311 | December 13, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

On a law that doesn't begin for 4 years, yeah that'll happen!

Posted by: 54465446 | December 13, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Wow, too bad the media didn't vet this Right Wing activist judge like they do anyone on the Left.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | December 13, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Regarding strategy - It appears that VA AG Cuchinelli wants to fast track this ruling. Why? Because, Justice Kagan agreed to recuse herself on this during Senate confirmation and if the Supreme court splits 4-4 on a case then the lower court ruling is upheld. Cuchinelli is trying to beat the other case, where the ACA was ruled constitutional, to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: TwoCentsWrth | December 13, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

After something like this, how can anyone say we have an impartial judiciary- the judge involved here is a "Bushie"

Posted by: staussfamily | December 13, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Virginia is becoming a pariah - notorious for gun runners, ground zero for Tea-Party operations and national union-busting activities and now this...

Posted by: staussfamily | December 13, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: DrainYou | December 13, 2010 7:21 PM: ...If they want to destroy their billionaire corporate patrons in the Big Health Insurance Industry who helped elect them...
Complete drivel. In the 2008 election cycle, healthcare/pharma industries gave $90.7 million, or 54 percent of the total, to Democratic candidates and party committees, compared to $76.6 million to Republicans. That difference was even more pronounced in the first three months of 2009, when Democrats collected 60 percent of the total $5.4 million in contributions.

Here's a summary of the top 20 recipients from the healthcare/pharma industries in 2008:

Obama, Barack (D) $19,578,158
McCain, John (R) $7,418,423
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $6,630,985
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $1,354,535
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $1,161,175
Cornyn, John (R-TX) $961,719
Coleman, Norm (R-MN) $898,328
Paul, Ron (R-TX) $874,444
Pallone, Frank Jr (D-NJ) $845,445
Rangel, Charles B (D-NY) $827,549
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) $718,398
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) $713,709
Smith, Gordon H (R-OR) $713,013
Roberts, Pat (R-KS) $676,949
Harkin, Tom (D-IA) $673,048
Collins, Susan M (R-ME) $659,019
Dingell, John D (D-MI) $573,736
Udall, Mark (D-CO) $560,115
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $556,918
Price, Tom (R-GA) $529,851

Anymore fantasies?

Posted by: lure1 | December 13, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Hmmmm...right wing thugs in the U.S. congress want right wing thugs in the Supreme Court to decide. The same thugs who installed George Bush as the President....interesting.

Posted by: bluethunder1 | December 13, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Judge Hudson is highly respected, and his opinion in the health-care case is well-reasoned.

He carefully examined arguments from both sides, and found (correctly) that the federal government's had overreached by trying to define "no action" as "economic activity".

An expedited appeal would be beneficial for all parties -- and the public -- so that Congress can begin to repair this flawed legislation.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama Administration tries to delay the appeal, in the false hope that they may do better in the 2012 elections than they did in 2010.

Posted by: jrmil | December 13, 2010 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Now that they finally have a judicial opinion they agree with--after fourteen contrary ones that they don't agree with--they expect expedited Supreme Court review. Are they going to hire Orly Taitz to argue for them?

Posted by: thrh | December 13, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

What a joke. Misguided people think that the U. S. Supreme Court will decide if the item is within the U. S. Constitution. So many rotten decisions have been made according to whether the Justices were appointed by Republicans or Democrats. The stupidist and most destructive decision was the Miranda Decision. Even though I am a Republican, the gift of the presidency to W. Bush by the U. S. Supreme Court in Y2K was one of the biggest travesties in our nation. One man one vote, what a laugh. How about the other issues that were on the Florida ballots? I am so thankful that the U. S. Supreme Court is on the east coast so that the stench of the court flows east over the Atlantic Ocean. However, they get even with us. The 9th District Court is on the west coast. Well, we can't have everything.

Posted by: hurleyvision | December 14, 2010 12:08 AM | Report abuse

"Cuccinelli said bypassing the appeals court would relieve the country -- and its massive health-care market -- of the uncertainty of a continued lengthy legal battle."

Lengthy battle a problem? The thing doesn't kick in for over three years!

Cuccy knows he will likely lose in an appeal and wants to bypass it and go to the supremes to take advantage of the GOP stocking the supreme court with right wingnuts.

Obama will not be so stupid Cuccy. It will be appealed and Cuccy will lose, and America will win. Too bad Cuccy can't make up his own laws and his own definition of the Constitution. Must suck to be a wingnut when you have to deal with the real world.

Posted by: Fate1 | December 14, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Still waiting for republicans to introduce a bill to give up their Life Time Gold Plated Health and Pension Benefits "We The Small People" are FORCED to pay for.

Where's the Teeparty on this issue?
What no FREE bus rides to D.C.?

Posted by: knjincvc | December 14, 2010 12:44 AM | Report abuse

"Judge Hudson is highly respected, and his opinion in the health-care case is well-reasoned."
Posted by: jrmil

Did you memorize those talking points in the past few hours or did you just cut&paste?

Posted by: Fate1 | December 14, 2010 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Looking for samples? I received the sample quickly. Thanks to "123 Get Samples" for the samples. I can't wait to get another in the mail!

Posted by: millerbrittney14 | December 14, 2010 4:14 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company