Federal judge won't stop states suits to block Obamacare

[teapartysamurai]

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 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.

As if Obamacare is on the same Tier as the Civil Rights or Voting Act.

 

[jillian]

Jillian, you took Corporations in law school and in that class they told you that the basis of the Corporate fiction that allowed the creation of corporations in the first place is they they are people and can act indepentantly as people including their ability to contract as an individual.

You are just upset that your ox got gored by that decision.

Your ox should be gored by the decision, too. It's disgusting. But if you want China and Saudi Arabia telling you who to vote for, more power to you. I'm sure BP has your best interests at heart.

And yes, I took corporations. But I also took Constitutional Law. And personhood for corporations is a legal fiction devised to give the courts jurisdiction over them for purpose of lawsuits. There was never any intent that the First Amendment apply to corporations.

I love how the corporate literalists are ok with this.

apparently its only when individual rights are protected that the right objects.

Really? Do corporations not have private property rights, too?

Can you walk into an Apple store and scoop up as many iPhones as you can grab?

that's a nice try. but fail nonetheless.

I'm afraid i don't take disingenuous wingnuts very seriously.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

LET FREEDOM RING!!!

 

[Revere]

Your ox should be gored by the decision, too. It's disgusting. But if you want China and Saudi Arabia telling you who to vote for, more power to you. I'm sure BP has your best interests at heart.

And yes, I took corporations. But I also took Constitutional Law. And personhood for corporations is a legal fiction devised to give the courts jurisdiction over them for purpose of lawsuits. There was never any intent that the First Amendment apply to corporations.

I love how the corporate literalists are ok with this.

apparently its only when individual rights are protected that the right objects.

Really? Do corporations not have private property rights, too?

Can you walk into an Apple store and scoop up as many iPhones as you can grab?

that's a nice try. but fail nonetheless.

I'm afraid i don't take disingenuous wingnuts very seriously.

Why should corporations have private property rights if they don't have free speech rights, if they are "objects?"

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

I'm not sure why you bring up these two cases. Citizens United doesn't really have much to do with individual rights, other than reaffirming the court's long held view that a corporation is considered a person in the eyes of the law.

Regarding Kelo v New London, Scalia was one of the dissenters who stood up for private property rights stating the city did not have a Constitutional right to seize someone's property just because someone else wanted to build there and generate more tax dollars. How could you possibly be upset with Scalia over that dissent?

 

[Revere]

Can corporations enter into contracts? Incur liability?

What other "objects" can do that?

 

[Revere]

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.

I'm not sure why you bring up these two cases. Citizens United doesn't really have much to do with individual rights, other than reaffirming the court's long held view that a corporation is considered a person in the eyes of the law.

Regarding Kelo v New London, Scalia was one of the dissenters who stood up for private property rights stating the city did not have a Constitutional right to seize someone's property just because someone else wanted to build there and generate more tax dollars. How could possibly be upset with Scalia over that dissent?

So was Clarence Thomas. There were no other reliable constructionists on the court at the time.

If the individual got fucked in Kelo, you have Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, et al, to blame.

 

[Gadawg73]

What is an "activist" Judge and what is not an "activist" Judge?
The term is loosely used by the right wing when a Judge rules against their wishes and is not in their vocabularly when an issue goes their way.
Double talk.

 

[Revere]

An activist judge rules you engage in interstate commerce if you DON'T do somthing, for one.

 

[Revere]

These pathetic libs want to tax, regulate, and sue the pants off corrporations, but they want to shut them up if they happen to want to complain publicly about the way they are treated.

THEN, they are "objects" without rights.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Your ox should be gored by the decision, too. It's disgusting. But if you want China and Saudi Arabia telling you who to vote for, more power to you. I'm sure BP has your best interests at heart.

And yes, I took corporations. But I also took Constitutional Law. And personhood for corporations is a legal fiction devised to give the courts jurisdiction over them for purpose of lawsuits. There was never any intent that the First Amendment apply to corporations.

I love how the corporate literalists are ok with this.

apparently its only when individual rights are protected that the right objects.

Really? Do corporations not have private property rights, too?

Can you walk into an Apple store and scoop up as many iPhones as you can grab?

that's a nice try. but fail nonetheless.

I'm afraid i don't take disingenuous wingnuts very seriously.

Which means our resident low grade troll, is admitting she can't refute.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Really? Do corporations not have private property rights, too?

Can you walk into an Apple store and scoop up as many iPhones as you can grab?

that's a nice try. but fail nonetheless.

I'm afraid i don't take disingenuous wingnuts very seriously.

Why should corporations have private property rights if they don't have free speech rights, if they are "objects?"

As far as liberals are concerned they don't think they have either.

They want to confiscate it all for the "greater good."

 

[shintao]

Bring it on, baby.
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.

I doubt with the skewed view Retards have on legal matters, that they will find any success in a court of law. What exactly is it they oppose, that doesn't have prior legal precedence for the feds to lean on?

 

[shintao]

These pathetic libs want to tax, regulate, and sue the pants off corrporations, but they want to shut them up if they happen to want to complain publicly about the way they are treated.

THEN, they are "objects" without rights.

You don't want to tax? Regulate? Have the ability to sue? Tell me, using your own critera, it ain't so..............