Congress is currently on vacation, and so is the president. Many people across the country think they all need to get back to work and fix the economy, etc.
see i have as an approval from my teacher to write about but i just dont get this article any info or like related topic
this is the article Health care hearing awaited
By Jane Norman
House Republicans pushed forward last week with a targeted repeal of the health care law, voting to take away funding for state health exchanges and school-based health centers. This unfolded even though lawmakers know oral arguments in a federal courtroom two hours away in Richmond, Va., likely will hold far more influence over the fate of the health care overhaul.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on Tuesday will hear two cases that challenge the constitutionality of the law’s requirement that all Americans have health insurance. It’s an important moment. The cases — one brought by Virginia and the other by Liberty University in Lynchburg — are the first to advance from federal district courts to the appeals level, possibly the last stop before the Supreme Court.
Request a free trial to CQ HealthBeat.
Experts predict the high court will likely accept one or both suits. Other strong candidates among the 20-plus suits challenging the law are one filed by 26 states, scheduled for oral arguments in June, and another by a conservative law center in Michigan.
Republicans know attempts to kill the overhaul (PL 11-148, PL 111-152) may make headlines, but without more Republican senators and control of the White House they can’t finish the job.
There’s an advantage for Republicans and their allies to cast the law as overreaching and unpopular. Research shows public opinion, who’s in control of Congress and the White House and the private political leanings of justices are factors that bear on the ultimate outcome of cases the Supreme Court hears.
Public opinion is split on the law. Bradley Joondeph, a Santa Clara University law professor following the legal fight, says it matters how warmly Americans view the law.
“It’s not one of these things where they are checking the public opinion polling on a regular basis,” says Joondeph, who clerked for former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. But “as with all of us, it’s impossible to be immune to the degree to which things are currently in favor or out of favor.” Justices are keenly aware of the perceptions of fellow jurists and the nation’s legal elite, and it would be much easier for the high court to declare the law unconstitutional if several lower courts have made that ruling, he says. Two so far have done that; three have ruled the other way on the merits.
Ronald Pollack, executive director of Families USA and one of the law’s most ardent supporters, says judges need to keep in mind that the law’s provisions regulating the health insurance market already are in effect. Striking down the law would take those benefits away from consumers, he says. But Pollack, a one-time law school dean, acknowledged that “public opinion is a factor,” even if judges deny it. Families USA has coordinated multiple grass-roots events to build support for the law.
Members of Congress are closely monitoring the lawsuits. As House debate began last week on a bill (HR 1213) that would strip mandatory funding for health exchanges, Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., noted that state attorneys general have asked for an expedited judicial review of the law. But the Obama administration disagreed. The Supreme Court turned down Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli’s request to skip the appeals courts and hear his state’s case immediately; such requests are rarely granted.
“As a result, the future of the law remains murky,” Upton says. “Both supporters and opponents should be able to agree that resolving the case expeditiously in the courts, the Supreme Court, is in the best interest of the country. But in the interim, we should not be spending billions of dollars . . . on something that might never happen.”
House Majority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., also has decried the “years of litigation and uncertainty” at hand.
In the Senate, Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, is leading the effort to halt implementation until the high court weighs in.
Supporters respond by noting that the law’s mandate that most Americans get health insurance — a pivotal constitutional question raised by the suits — doesn’t take effect until 2014.
Democratic and Republican leaders have signed onto legal briefs filed in support and opposition to the lawsuits, as have dozens of groups representing business, patients, the elderly and the insurance industry — a sign of the widespread interest in the outcome.
The three-judge panel will hear arguments lasting about 40 minutes for each case. The panel is chosen at random and the identity of each judge will not be publicly known in advance. While the 4th Circuit used to be regarded as conservative, four of its judges were appointed by President Obama. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal will argue for the government, a sign of the importance the White House places on the case — the solicitor general rarely argues cases in lower federal courts.
Joondeph said 4th Circuit judges are known for their efficiency, meaning a ruling could come by August. This would allow the Supreme Court, if it decides to take the case, to consider an appeal in the court’s next term in the fall and to issue a ruling in the heat of the 2012 presidential election campaign