The issue of the new health care reform law has again become a player in the political debate, as the courts are lending new interest in it with the clock ticking towards Election Day.

Last week, a federal judge in Florida allowed part of a legal challenge to go forward that includes 20 different states; today, a federal judge hears arguments in a separate suit spearheaded by the state of Virginia.

The issue that this effort is boiling down to revolves around the 'individual mandate' in the bill, which requires people to buy health insurance.  

That's what the judge allowed to go forward in Florida, and that's what will be argued today in a courtroom in Richmond, while arguments in the multi-state case will continue in mid-December.

"We in the Attorney General's office feel that the new federal individual mandate - the requirement that everyone be forced to buy government-approved health insurance by 2014 or face fines - is unconstitutional," said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who has become a lightning rod figure in this debate.

"We argue that if someone isn't buying insurance, then - by definition - he is not participating in commerce," Cuccinelli argues.  "

In other words - can the Congress and the Federal Government force someone to engage in commerce?

It is a legal question that has never been asked - or answered - by the courts.

Not all judges have seen this as an issue to be debate, as a federal judge in Michigan last week threw out a lawsuit that included this same argument.

But right now, there is the suit in Virginia and the multi-state suit in Florida that seem to have found a friendly ear on the bench.

The Justice Department has tried to downplay these suits, arguing that they will be quashed by the courts.

"We saw this with the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act," a Justice Department statement read earlier this year.

"All of those challenges failed...So too will the challenge to health reform."

But not everyone is so sure about that, and when the courts are involved in such a heated political issue, placing big bets is usually not a good idea, especially when this seems destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.

One final thought - what's the political impact of all of this?

It's probably good for Republicans, since the issue keeps coming up in recent weeks, reminding probable GOP voters of this controversial law, and how angry they were about it.