In my breaking news post the other day, I reported on how the government filed its cert petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the Eleventh Circuit’s high profile ruling striking down the mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance under the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148. Hours after it filed its cert petition in the Eleventh Circuit case, the government filed its brief responding to the plaintiffs’ July 29 petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Sixth Circuit’s June 29 divided panel decision upholding the constitutionality of the individual mandate. See Thomas More Law Center, et al. v. Obama, et al. (U.S. Supreme Court, Case No. 11-117). In its brief, the government urged the Court not to grant review of the Sixth Circuit’s decision because the relevant issues can be more fully explored in the Eleventh Circuit appeal.
So is the Eleventh Circuit case a better vehicle for Supreme Court review than the Sixth Circuit’s Thomas More case?
Yesterday, I offered my in-depth analysis on this issue when I was interviewed on the “Legally Speaking” program on the Voice of Russia, the international radio network heard in such international cities as New York, Washington, D.C., London, and Moscow. I also discussed this issue (and many others) in my video interview yesterday on LexBlog TV, hosted by Colin O’Keefe. LexBlog TV is part of The LexBlog Network, which is the largest professional blog network in the world. Watch my interview on the LexBlog TV page and find out the answer to the question above.
Or, watch on YouTube:
