Showing posts with label Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Court. Show all posts

Monday, May 16, 2011

Supreme Court turns down Va.’s request to expedite review of health-care law

Supreme Court rejects Va.’s request to expedite review of health-care law - The Washington PostTWP_Debug.pagedebug && window.console && console.log && console.log('[' + (new Date()-TWP_Debug.initialTime)/1000 + ']' + ' js/head.jpt - start');TWP_Debug.pagedebug && window.console && console.log && console.log('[' + (new Date()-TWP_Debug.initialTime)/1000 + ']' + ' js/head.jpt - after wpost load');TWP_Debug.pagedebug && window.console && console.log && console.log('[' + (new Date()-TWP_Debug.initialTime)/1000 + ']' + ' js/head.jpt - after eidos load');TWP_Debug.pagedebug && window.console && console.log && console.log('[' + (new Date()-TWP_Debug.initialTime)/1000 + ']' + ' js/head.jpt - after ad load'); $(document).ready(function(){TWP_Debug.pagedebug && window.console && console.log && console.log('[' + (new Date()-TWP_Debug.initialTime)/1000 + ']' + ' document.ready fired'); }); $(window).load(function(){TWP_Debug.pagedebug && window.console && console.log && console.log('[' + (new Date()-TWP_Debug.initialTime)/1000 + ']' + ' window.load fired'); });TWP_Debug.pagedebug && window.console && console.log && console.log('[' + (new Date()-TWP_Debug.initialTime)/1000 + ']' + ' js/head.jpt - end');TWP = ( typeof TWP == 'undefined' ) ? {} : TWP ;TWP.Data = ( typeof TWP.Data == 'undefined' ) ? {} : TWP.Data ;TWP.Data.NN = {init: function(){this.pageType="article_story";this.canonicalURL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-turn-down-virginias-request-to-expedite-review-of-health-care-law/2011/04/15/AFr7U5hE_story.html";this.shortURL="";this.section="/politics";this.destinations="google_news";this.homepage=false;}}TWP.Data.NN.init(); SubscribeMobileConversationsToday's PaperGoing Out GuideJobsCarsReal EstateRentalsClassifiedsHomePoliticsCampaignsCongressCourts &LawThe Fed PageHealth CarePollingWhite HouseWho Runs GovBlogs & ColumnsTop Blogs

The Fix | Chris Cillizza2chambers | Felicia SonmezFederal Eye | Ed O’KeefeFact Checker | Glenn KesslerOpinionsAll OpinionsPostPartisanLeft-LeaningRight-LeaningTolesCartoonsTelnaesAnimationsLocalColumnist IndexLocalCrimeDC PoliticsEducationMaryland PoliticsObituariesTraffic & CommutingVirginia PoliticsWeatherBlogs & ColumnsSpecial ReportsTop Blogs

The State of NoVa | Beer store’s demise sparks uprisingOn Parenting | Raising a generation of children on yogaGoing Out Guide | Truckeroo food truck festival comingDr. Gridlock | The weekend and beyondSportsRedskins/NFLCapitals/NHLWizards/NBANationals/MLBDC United/SoccerCollegesAllMetSportsOther SportsBlogs & ColumnsTop Blogs

Capitals Insider| Katie CarreraNationals Journal| Adam KilgoreSoccer Insider| Steven GoffThe Insider| Mike JonesNationalCorrectionsEnergy & EnvironmentHealth & ScienceHigher EducationNational SecurityOn FaithOn LeadershipBlogs& ColumnsSpecial ReportsWorldAfricaTheAmericasAsia &PacificEuropeMiddle EastNational SecurityWar ZonesSpecial ReportsBusinessEconomyIndustriesLocal BusinessMarketsPolicy&RegulationTechnologyWorldBusinessBlogs & ColumnsSpecial ReportsInvestigationsLifestyleAdviceCarolyn HaxFoodHome & GardenStyleTravelWeddingsWellnessBlogs & ColumnsTop Blogs

On Parenting | Janice D’ArcyArts Post | Jacqueline TrescottThe Checkup | Jennifer LaRue Huget & Rob SteinAll We Can Eat | Food sectionEntertainmentBooksCelebritiesComicsGoing Out GuideHoroscopesMoviesMuseumsPuzzlesTheater & DanceTVTop Blogs

Reliable Source | Roxanne Roberts & Amy ArgetsingerTV Column | Lisa de MoraesCelebritology | Jen ChaneyClick Track | Chris Richards & David MalitzMultimediaInnovationsPhotosVideosThe Washington PostMake us your start pageweather image|PersonalizeThe Washington PostCampaignsCongressCourts &LawThe Fed PageHealth CarePollingWhite HouseWho Runs GovBlogs & ColumnsIn the NewsRon Paul Cheri Daniels Newt Gingrich facts A Mormon president? Situation room TWP_Debug.pagedebug && window.console && console.log && console.log('[' + (new Date()-TWP_Debug.initialTime)/1000 + ']' + ' skeleton - start');Supreme Court turns down Va.’s request to expedite review of health-care lawSmaller TextLarger TextText SizePrintE-mailReprints By Robert Barnes,

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down Virginia’s request that it rule immediately on the constitutionality of the nation’s health-care overhaul.

The decision to reject Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II’s request for expedited review, announced routinely without elaboration or noted dissent, is not surprising. The court rarely takes up issues that have not received a full review in the nation’s appeals courts.

Loading...

Comments

Weigh InCorrections?Tweet

More on this Story

Supreme Court turns down Virginia’s request to expedite review of health-care lawRead more on PostPoliticsTrump backs Cuccinelli on Supreme Court health-care reviewMc­Don­nell criticizes federal health-care law in address to nationView all Items in this Story

Chat: Virginia health-care ruling strikes down key provision of Obama's plan

Health-care law challenges

View the graphic

Various challenges to the health-care law championed by the Obama administration and passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress in 2010 are proceeding rapidly. Hearings are scheduled for next month in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, and two other appellate courts will address the issue in June.

Depending on the speed of the appeals courts and the legal process, the issue could arrive back at the court by next year, in the thick of the next presidential election.

Cuccinelli, a Republican elected in 2009, has been one of the most vocal opponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which has been a major issue in the nation’s political debate since its passage.

He challenged Congress’s authority to pass the so-called individual mandate, which requires nearly all Americans either be covered by their employer’s insurance or buy their own coverage.

Cuccinelli told the court that it should short-circuit the usual appeals process because of a “palpable consensus in this country that the question of PPACA’s constitutionality must be and will be decided in this court.”

But the Obama administration countered that the individual mandate requirement does not take effect until 2014, and that the justices would benefit from reviews of the law now underway in the appellate courts.

Lawsuits challenging the act have been filed across the country, and the results so far have fit a partisan pattern: Democratic-appointed judges have upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate, Republican-appointed judges have struck it down. Virginia has one of each: a decision in support of the act in the eastern district, and against it in the western district.

The court of appeals in Richmond will consider both in its hearing May 10.

Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision, Cuccinelli said in a statement that the action was “disappointing but not surprising,” given the rarity of such expedited cases.

“We asked the United States Supreme Court for expedited review of our lawsuit because Virginia and other states are already spending huge sums to implement their portions of the health-care act, businesses are already making decisions about whether to cut or keep employee health plans, and citizens are in limbo until the Supreme Court rules,” he said. “Asking the court to expedite our lawsuit was about removing this crippling and costly uncertainty as quickly as possible.”

Monday’s action on the Virginia request did provide one clue about the court’s future deliberations on the health-care law: It appears that Justice Elena Kagan participated in the decision. Conservative critics of the law have suggested that Kagan might have to sit out review of the law because of her role as President Obama’s first solicitor general.

Kagan told the Senate during her confirmation hearings last summer that she took part in only the most minor of discussions about the health-care law.

The case is Virginia v. Sebelius.

+ SHAREEmailTwitterFacebookStumbleuponDiggTweet

???initialComments:true! pubdate:04/25/2011 10:19 EDT! commentPeriod:3! commentEndDate:4/28/11 10:19 EDT! currentDate:5/14/11 10:35 EDT! allowComments:false! displayComments:false!Weigh InDiscussion PolicyAbout Discussions, Badges  Newest firstOldest firstMost Recommended first SuperFan

SuperFan badge holders consistently post smart, timely comments about Washington area sports and teams.

If your comments or those of another user measure up, please let Post editors know.

Fact Checker

Fact Checkers contribute questions, information and facts to The Fact Checker.

If your comments or those of another user measure up, please let Post editors know.

Washingtologist

Washingtologists consistently post thought provoking, timely comments on events, communities, and trends in the Washington area.

If your comments or those of another user measure up, please let Post editors know.

Post Writer

This commenter is a Washington Post editor, reporter or producer.

Post Forum

Post Forum members consistently offer thought provoking, timely comments on politics, national and international affairs.

If your comments or those of another user measure up, please let Post editors know.

Post Recommended

Washington Post reporters or editors recommend this comment or reader post.

+ SHARE THIS DEBATEPeople who read this also read...SlateSlate V: Princess Beatrice’s Hat on eBayFacebook smeared Google? C'mon!Meltdowns. Floods. Tornadoes. Oil spills. Grid crashes. Why disasters are becoming more frequent, and what we can do about it. TWP_Debug.pagedebug && window.console && console.log && console.log('[' + (new Date()-TWP_Debug.initialTime)/1000 + ']' + ' right_rail_shell.jpt - start');Trove link goes hereLinkLink Network News Hide this

Most Popular Friends' Activity Most Popular Most Tweeted Twitter Activity

Most Popular Right Now

Your Friends’ Most Recent Activity

Follow The Post: Facebook Twitter View More Activity

The Post Most: PoliticsMost-viewed stories, videos and galleries int he past two hours

Most Popular SectionTop VideosTop GalleriesPOTUS Tracker

Friday, May 13, 2011

9:30 a.m.Obama receives the Presidential Daily Briefing10:10 a.m.Obama meets with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen Congressional Database Browser every vote in the U.S. Congress since 1991 or search the database to see how your member voted on a particular issue.

Explore the 111thHouseSenateBillsHouseH RES 264May 12, 2011MoreHouseH CON RES 50May 12, 2011MoreHouseH R 1231May 12, 2011MoreSenateOn the NominationMay 12, 2011MoreSenateOn the NominationMay 11, 2011MoreSenateOn the NominationMay 10, 2011MoreBillH R 1473(Title not available.)MoreBillH R 1423(Title not available.)MoreBillH R 1363(Title not available.)More FIND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Politics Newsletters

Sign-up for e-mail newsletters and alerts and get the news you need delivered directly to your inbox.

 Behind the Government ShowdownAfternoon FixEzra Klein's WonkbookFederal InsiderMorning FixPolitics News & AnalysisPolitics News AlertsSunday Agenda & RoundupSee all Washington Post Newsletters

var fixLink = function(){ //console.log("content ready"); var link = $("#rev_ad2").find("a.right-arrow"); link.attr('href','http://www.slate.com');}YUI().use('node-base',function(Y) { Y.on("contentready", fixLink, ".rev-widget");})Connect with Post Politics

facebook Icontwitter Iconrss Iconexcpoint Iconmobile Iconapple IconFacebook: Become a fan of Washington Post Politics

Facebook: Become a fan of Washington Post Politics

Twitter: Follow us on Twitter

RSS: Subscribe to our RSS feeds

Alerts: Sign up for news alerts

Mobile: Washington Post on the go

App Store: View our iPhone applications

Featured Advertiser LinksOil Spill, Mesothelioma Class Action, Femur Fracture, Navy Veterans, Asbestos News Center, Dross, Mesothelioma Symptoms>>Gas Drilling, Metal on Metal Hip, Mesothelioma Treatment, Yaz, Asbestos cancer, Knee loosening>>Looking to buy a home? Visit TWP Real Estate section for the latest open houses.>>Make Your Vanguard Investing More Profitable - Free Research Report Reveals Best & Worst Funds>>TWP_Debug.pagedebug && window.console && console.log && console.log('[' + (new Date()-TWP_Debug.initialTime)/1000 + ']' + ' right_rail_shell.jpt - end');TWP_Debug.pagedebug && window.console && console.log && console.log('[' + (new Date()-TWP_Debug.initialTime)/1000 + ']' + ' skeleton - end'); Politics Links

CampaignsCongressCourts &LawThe Fed PageHealth CarePolling White HouseWho Runs GovBlogs & Columns Ways you can get us

Mobile Podcasts Apps Newsletter & alerts Widgets RSS Post Store Facebook Photo Store Twitter Washington Post Live The Washington Post

About Us Work for us Community Relations PostPoints Corrections/Suggestions Archive Contact the Ombudsman Web site

Make us your homepage Newspaper

Subscribe Home delivery service e-Replica Advertise

In the newspaper On the web site Mobile Events The Washington Post Company

Post Company web sites Partners Slate Who Runs Gov Express Night Out Captial Business El Tiempo Latino The Root Foreign Policy Trove Post Tickets Capitol Deal Service Alley © 1996- The Washington Post User Agreement and Privacy Policy Rights and Permissions Help Contact Us Ad Choices TWP_Debug.pagedebug && window.console && console.log && console.log('[' + (new Date()-TWP_Debug.initialTime)/1000 + ']' + ' js/footer.jpt - footer start');TWP_Debug.pagedebug && window.console && console.log && console.log('[' + (new Date()-TWP_Debug.initialTime)/1000 + ']' + ' js/footer.jpt - footer done');TWP_Debug.pagedebug && window.console && console.log && console.log('[' + (new Date()-TWP_Debug.initialTime)/1000 + ']' + ' frameset - end');

View the original article here

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Supreme Court says arbitration agreements can ban class-action efforts

Business interests praised the 5 to 4 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion as a recognition that class-action efforts can defeat the purported advantage of arbitration: quick and efficient settlement of consumer complaints.

AT&T said in a statement that its arbitration program is “free, fair, easy to use and consumer friendly.”

But consumer and public interest groups said the decision is another example of the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. — “the Corporate Court,” one group called it — siding with big business.

Deepak Gupta, who argued the case on behalf of cellphone customers Vincent and Liza Concepcion, called the ruling a “crushing blow to American consumers and employees” and said it leaves consumers powerless against arbitration agreements buried in fine print.

“Whenever you sign a contract to get a cell phone, open a bank account or take a job, you may be giving up your right to hold companies accountable for fraud, discrimination or other illegal practices,” Gupta, a lawyer with the public interest group Public Citizen, said in a statement.

The case raised a different class-action issue than the one the court is considering in a discrimination class-action lawsuit brought by female employees of Wal-Mart, which was argued last month.

At issue in Wednesday’s ruling was a California law that does not allow bans on class-action efforts in arbitration or litigation.

But Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, found the law — similar to ones in 18 states — at odds with the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act, whose “overarching purpose,” he said, was to “facilitate streamlined proceedings.”

He added: “Requiring the availability of classwide arbitration interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration and thus creates a scheme inconsistent with the FAA.”

He was joined by the court’s most consistent conservatives: Roberts and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented along with the court’s other liberals, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Breyer said that the majority had turned its back on states’ rights and that California’s law “is of no federal concern so long as the state does not adopt a special rule that disfavors arbitration.”

The Concepcions signed up with AT&T Mobility in 2002, taking advantage of a deal for a Motorola cellphone and a free Nokia. But the couple complained that the company charged them $30.22 in sales tax and other fees for the “free” phone.

The couple filed a federal lawsuit, seeking class-action treatment. The company responded that the contract they had signed banned class-action efforts in arbitration and litigation.

A federal district judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit disagreed. They cited a ruling from the California Supreme Court that said complete bans on class-action efforts were “unconscionable” because of the disproportionate power of the company.

But Scalia said such a view conflicts with federal law. He said that although individual arbitration can be a fast and efficient transaction for small claims, the situation is different for a class of claimants.

Arbitration offers less appellate review, and defendants are less likely to participate when faced with a “devastating loss.”

“Arbitration is poorly suited to the higher stakes of class litigation,” Scalia said.

Breyer countered that settling a class of complaints was more efficient than thousands of separate proceedings.

And he said that requiring each complaining customer to go through the process would most likely discourage participation and draw little attention from lawyers willing to help.

“What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim?” Breyer wrote.


View the original article here