奧巴馬政府要求（星期三）最高人民法院關於審理一宗2010年醫療改革的法律。

Supreme Court Is Asked to Rule on Health Care 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/us/justice-dept-asks-supreme-court-for-health-care-ruling.html?_r=1

By ADAM LIPTAK

Published: September 28, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to hear a case concerning the 2010 health care overhaul law. The development, which came unexpectedly fast, makes it all but certain that the court will soon agree to hear one or more cases involving challenges to the law, with arguments by the spring and a decision by June, in time to land in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign. The Justice Department said the justices should hear its appeal of a decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, that struck down the centerpiece of the law by a 2-to-1 vote. The department has consistently and successfully defended this law in several courts of appeals, and only the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled it unconstitutional,” the Justice Department said in a statement. “We believe the question is appropriate for review by the Supreme Court. 
“Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation, such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed,” the statement continued.  “We believe the challenges to the Affordable Care Act — like the one in the 11th Circuit — will also ultimately fail and that the Supreme Court will uphold the law.”
On Monday, the administration announced that it would not seek review from the full 11th Circuit. Its Supreme Court petition was not due until November.
The administration did not explain why it did not take routine litigation steps that might have slowed the progress of the challenges enough to avoid a decision in the current Supreme Court term. It did say in its brief that the 11th Circuit’s decision striking down the central piece of a comprehensive regulatory scheme created “a matter of grave national importance.”
The political calculus is complicated. A decision striking down President Obama’s signature legislative achievement only months before the election would doubtless be a blow. But a decision from a court divided along ideological lines could further energize voters already critical of last year’s 5-to-4 campaign finance decision, Citizens United.
A decision upholding the law might also both help and hurt Mr. Obama’s chances. It would represent vindication, but it could also spur some voters to redouble their efforts to elect candidates committed to repealing it.
The three federal courts of appeal that have issued decisions on the law so far have all reached different conclusions, with one upholding it, a second — the 11th Circuit— striking it down in part, and a third saying that threshold legal issues barred an immediate ruling. A fourth challenge to the law was heard last week by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The views of the appeals court judges have not uniformly tracked the presumed views of the presidents who appointed them. Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, appointed by President George W. Bush, joined the majority in a 2-to-1 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, which upheld the law. Judge Frank M. Hull of the 11th Circuit was appointed by President Bill Clinton and was an author of its majority opinion.
Also on Wednesday, two sets of plaintiffs who had won on the core issue in the 11th Circuit filed their own requests for Supreme Court review.
“Time is of the essence,” wrote Paul D. Clement, a former United States solicitor general who represents 26 states that are challenging the law. “The grave constitutional questions surrounding the A.C.A. and its novel exercise of federal power will not subside until this court resolves them.”
The 11th Circuit, in a decision issued in August, ruled that a part of law requiring the purchase of insurance — the so-called individual mandate — was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional power.
The majority decision, written by Chief Judge Joel F. Dubina and Judge Hull, said, “We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated Congressional powers.”






最高法院要求衛生 CareWASHINGTON規則 - 奧巴馬政府要求日（星期三）最高人民法院關於審理一宗2010年醫療改革的法律。來的意外快速發展，使得這一切，但肯定的是，法院將很快同意聽到一個或多個個案，涉及的法律挑戰，春，由6月的決定的爭論，在土地，在中間2012年總統競選。美國司法部說，法官應該聽到的第11巡迴的美國上訴法院三名法官組成的小組，在亞特蘭大，即由2比1的投票結果推翻了法律的核心，其決定提出上訴。該署已持續並成功地捍衛法律上訴法院，只有第11巡迴上訴法院裁定違憲“，司法部在一份聲明中說。他說：“我們相信，問題是由最高法院審查適當的。
“縱觀歷史，有被其他具有里程碑意義的立法，如”社會保障法“，類似的挑戰，公民權利法”和“投票權法”，所有這些挑戰失敗“的說法，繼續。 “我們相信，支付得起的醫療法”的挑戰 - 就像在第11巡迴 - 最終也將失敗，並且，最高法院將堅持依法。“
週一，布什政府宣布，它不會尋求從全面的第11巡迴審查。直到11月，其最高法院請願。
布什政府沒有解釋為什麼沒有採取常規的訴訟，可能有足夠的挑戰，以避免在目前最高法院長期的決定的進展緩慢的步驟。它說，在其短暫的，打擊的第11巡迴的決定創建一個全面的監管計劃的核心部分“問題嚴重的國家的重要性。”
政治演算是複雜的。打倒奧巴馬總統在大選前的簽名立法的成就只有幾個月的一個決定無疑是一個打擊。但被意識形態分成法院的決定可能會進一步激發選民已經在去年的5至4競選資金的決定，美國公民的關鍵。
維護法律的決定也可能會幫助和傷害奧巴馬先生的機會。這將意味著平反，但它也可能刺激一些選民加倍努力，致力於廢除它，以選出候選人。
到目前為止，已發出的呼籲，法律上的決定的三個聯邦法院都堅持一個，第二個達到不同的結論 - 第11巡迴引人注目的部分下來，和第三的說法，門檻的法律問題，禁止立即裁決。聽到一個法律的第四個挑戰是，美國上訴法院上週哥倫比亞特區巡迴區。
上訴法院法官的意見並不一致跟踪任命他們的總統推定的意見。法官的Jeffrey S.薩頓，由布什總統任命，加入2 - 1在美國上訴法院的決定在大多數第六巡迴，在辛辛那提，堅持法律。第11巡迴法官弗蘭克 M.船體被任命為克林頓總統和其多數成員的意見的作者。
同日，兩​​套的核心問題上曾榮獲第11巡迴原告提出自己的要求最高法院審查。
“時間的本質是，寫道：”保羅 D.克萊門特，美國前總檢察長代表26個國家，是具有挑戰性的法律。 “周圍的ACA嚴重的憲法問題和其新穎的聯邦權力的行使不會消退，直到該法院解決。“
第11巡迴，在八月發行的決定，裁定的法律的一部分，需要購買保險 - 所謂的個人任務 - 是一個國會權力的違憲行使。
多數人的決定，寫，由首席法官喬爾樓 Dubina和法官赫爾說，“我們沒有發現任何普遍適用的司法強制執行限制的原則，將使我們能夠堅持不擦掉列舉國會固有的界限，在系統的任務權力。“