Federal judge won't stop states suits to block Obamacare

[Revere]

Bring it on, baby.

Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed | Reuters

(Reuters) - U.S. states can proceed with their lawsuit seeking to overturn President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare reform law, a Florida judge ruled on Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson had already indicated at a hearing last month that he could not uphold parts of a motion by the Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuit, led by Florida and 19 other states.

 

[Avatar4321]

On what grounds would he stop them?

 

[RDD_1210]

All bark, no bite. These cases will go nowhere. Waste of time and money.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Interstate commerce. This will eventually probably go to the SC based on the govt forcing its own citizens to buy a product. That part will be struck out as unconstitutional but probably not the rest of the bill.

 

[The Infidel]

All bark, no bite. These cases will go nowhere. Waste of time and money.

This one has bite...

 

[Rozman]

sa weeet.....This thing is a mess.It needs to die a death of 2000 plus paper cuts.

 

[Charles_Main]

All bark, no bite. These cases will go nowhere. Waste of time and money.

Wrong, This case has a very strong argument on the Individual Mandate.

I would bet you right now that the US supreme court would rule 5 to 4 that the Mandate violates the constitution.

 

[Trajan]

Interstate commerce. This will eventually probably go to the SC based on the govt forcing its own citizens to buy a product. That part will be struck out as unconstitutional but probably not the rest of the bill.

well, don't count your chickens before they are hatched.I am trying to remember/ find, I think it was the Wyoming (?)case.

back in the 30's a guy was growing his own feed for his cattle or some such, he was taken to court and lost , it went all the way up I believe to the SC, where in he was accused of not buying grain etc. on the market.....he lost.

 

[Trajan]

All bark, no bite. These cases will go nowhere. Waste of time and money.

Wrong, This case has a very strong argument on the Individual Mandate.

I would bet you right now that the US supreme court would rule 5 to 4 that the Mandate violates the constitution.

frankly I think a 5-4 would be a travesty...this would open the door to, well....almost anything. I just want it overturned but am not sure....

 

[RDD_1210]

You realize if the individual mandate is struck down and the rest of Obamacare remains intact for the most part, that could mean the beginning of the downfall of insurance companies as we know them? So yeah, I'm ok with striking down the mandate if thats the end result.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

All bark, no bite. These cases will go nowhere. Waste of time and money.

Wrong, This case has a very strong argument on the Individual Mandate.

I would bet you right now that the US supreme court would rule 5 to 4 that the Mandate violates the constitution.

As it should. The requirement to buy insurance is a crazy stupid corrupt idea. This bill was never socialist. It was always flat out corrupt.

 

[jillian]

Bring it on, baby.

Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed | Reuters

(Reuters) - U.S. states can proceed with their lawsuit seeking to overturn President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare reform law, a Florida judge ruled on Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson had already indicated at a hearing last month that he could not uphold parts of a motion by the Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuit, led by Florida and 19 other states.

Do you actually read what you post? Either you only read the headline. Or you're intentionally misleading. Which is it? From your article:

Vinson dismissed four of six claims the states brought against the healthcare law but said he saw grounds to proceed on two counts, including one relating to the way critics say it would force huge new spending by state governments

Vinson clearly didn't think much of the repug AG's claims.

As to the two claims he allowed to go further, Judge Vinson wrote:

"In this order, I have not attempted to determine whether the line between constitutional and extraconstitutional government has been crossed.....I am only saying that ... the plaintiffs have at least stated a plausible claim that the line has been crossed"

Finally, also from your link:

We saw this with the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act -- constitutional challenges were brought to all three of these monumental pieces of legislation, and all of those challenges failed," presidential adviser Stephanie Cutter wrote in a blog post.

so don't go tearing your underwear over this yet. there are very limited bases to dismiss a case so long as there is ANY cognizable claim. Judges don't make finding of facts on motions to dismiss. They are required to take all assertions as truthful on their face. ......

even if they're bogus.

 

[jillian]

All bark, no bite. These cases will go nowhere. Waste of time and money.

Wrong, This case has a very strong argument on the Individual Mandate.

I would bet you right now that the US supreme court would rule 5 to 4 that the Mandate violates the constitution.

apparently you've never read Citizens United or Kelo.

The Court doesn't give a rats patoot about individual mandates or individual rights.

scalia and his henchmen are an embarrassment.

 

[Revere]

He didn't rule on it. He didn't pass any more judgement than was necessary to allow it to advance.

Social Security is insolvent. The people who challenged it were just slightly ahead of its time.

 

[Revere]

All bark, no bite. These cases will go nowhere. Waste of time and money.

Wrong, This case has a very strong argument on the Individual Mandate.

I would bet you right now that the US supreme court would rule 5 to 4 that the Mandate violates the constitution.

apparently you've never read Citizens United or Kelo.

The Court doesn't give a rats patoot about individual mandates or individual rights.

scalia and his henchmen are an embarrassment.

What do either of those two cases have to do with "individual mandates" or "individual rights?"

 

[jillian]

He didn't rule on it. He didn't pass any more judgement than was necessary to allow it to advance.

Social Security is insolvent. The people who challenged it were just slightly ahead of its time.

insolvency isn't a basis for challenge.

now you're claiming an expertise on the law? lol..

i love you people. you crack me up. yesterday it was accounting. today law.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Interstate commerce. This will eventually probably go to the SC based on the govt forcing its own citizens to buy a product. That part will be struck out as unconstitutional but probably not the rest of the bill.

well, don't count your chickens before they are hatched.I am trying to remember/ find, I think it was the Wyoming (?)case.

back in the 30's a guy was growing his own feed for his cattle or some such, he was taken to court and lost , it went all the way up I believe to the SC, where in he was accused of not buying grain etc. on the market.....he lost.

Close....1941, Wisconson. Wickard v. Filburn.

Thankfully we no longer have a court that would rule as they did in cases like Wickard and Darby.

 

[jillian]

Interstate commerce. This will eventually probably go to the SC based on the govt forcing its own citizens to buy a product. That part will be struck out as unconstitutional but probably not the rest of the bill.

well, don't count your chickens before they are hatched.I am trying to remember/ find, I think it was the Wyoming (?)case.

back in the 30's a guy was growing his own feed for his cattle or some such, he was taken to court and lost , it went all the way up I believe to the SC, where in he was accused of not buying grain etc. on the market.....he lost.

Close....1941, Wisconson. Wickard v. Filburn.

Thankfully we no longer have a court that would rule as they did in cases like Wickard and Darby.

yeah, now we have corporatist loons who think corporations are people.

 

[Revere]

He didn't rule on it. He didn't pass any more judgement than was necessary to allow it to advance.

Social Security is insolvent. The people who challenged it were just slightly ahead of its time.

insolvency isn't a basis for challenge.

now you're claiming an expertise on the law? lol..

i love you people. you crack me up. yesterday it was accounting. today law.

FDR stacked the court with justices who would accept calling Social Security a tax one day and not a tax the other day.

Ain't going to happen again.

 

[Tech_Esq]

This case is still in the cooker. We'll have to wait on a hearing on the merits of the case. However, far more interesting and immediate is the Virginia challenge to Obamacare which starts its trial on the merits on Monday.

Stay tuned......that federal judge doesn't sound overly impressed by the government's argument concerning constitutional authority to impose the mandate.