"DOJ Will Appeal Health Care Lawsuit, Says It Shouldn't Be Fast Tracked"

[Clio the Leo]

DOJ Will Appeal Health Care Lawsuit, Says It Shouldn't Be Fast Tracked
Ryan J. Reilly | December 14, 2010, 2:00PM

The Justice Department said Tuesday that they'll appeal a federal judge's ruling that the individual mandate contained in the health care law is unconstitutional and said the case shouldn't head straight for the Supreme Court.

"We intend to appeal the district court's ruling in Virginia to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals," Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told TPM in a statement.

DOJ's announcement a day after federal judge Henry E. Hudson ruled against the federal government was expected, but comes in the wake of calls by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R) to "fast-track" the judicial process by skipping the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and moving directly to the Supreme Court.

Schmaler noted that four challenges were already being heard by courts of appeals -- including one by the Fourth Circuit -- and said the case should follow the normal process.

"Virginia's suit is based on a state statute that is not applicable nationwide, and the Department believes this case should follow the ordinary course of allowing the courts of appeals to hear it first so the issues and arguments can be fully developed before the Supreme Court decides whether to consider it," Schmaler said.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/doj-appeals-health-care-lawsuit-says-it-shouldnt-be-fast-tracked.php

[Kber]

1. Since mandates don't kick in for a few years

and since the other parts of the HCR law are still valid, I don't see a reason to rush either.

[Igel]

2. I'll play devil's advocate.

Because significant amounts of time and money will go into planning for implementing the HCRA prior to when the "other parts" of the law kick in--and they'll have to plan to implement the part that the guy in VA ruled unconstitutional.

If it takes 18 months to get to SCOTUS, and 6 months for SCOTUS to rule, that's 2 years' planning for an irrelevant provision, leaving us with not so much as a result of 3 years' work. Better to know any bad news better and use that time if you're interested in making people's lives better.

Because if SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional then much of the fiscal underpinnings of the HCRA get nuked: While I think the fiscal projections for the HCRA aren't worth used toilet paper, nonetheless he money that results from the mandate is already spent, so to speak. Those parts that are about to be implemented will need to be revised to "unspend" the money, and that will be a political bloodbath. Some portions will still be repealed as a result. Insurance company premiums aren't just based on current expenses, but involve projected revenue and expenses: If suddenly the basis for these projections is trashed, with expenses increased by mandate but income suddenly erased from the ledger, plan for large increases.

Most of the valid parts of the HCRA that impose benefits for "the people" aren't free, as states like NY have found, and unless a way is found to pay for them the result is that "the people" are hurt.

[Supersedeas]

3. Better to have a Circuit Ct panel flesh it out prior to handing it to Alito-Roberts-Thomas-Scalia-K

Kennedy conservative coalition.