Virginia's lawsuit against HC law thrown out

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by JimH52, Sep 8, 2011.

  1. JimH52
    Offline

    JimH52 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    19,263
    Thanks Received:
    3,100
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    US
    Ratings:
    +8,256
  2. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,641
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,044
    I didn't see any reference to a witch hunt in your link.

    However, I did see this:

    "Not only does the court's opinion reject the role of the states envisioned by the Constitution, it dismisses an act of the Virginia General Assembly -- the Health Care Freedom Act -- as a mere pretense or pretext," Cuccinelli said. "It is unfortunate that the court would be so dismissive of a piece of legislation that passed both houses of a divided legislature by overwhelming margins with broad, bipartisan support."

    But the Justice Department applauded the court's reasoning.

    "Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed as well," said a statement from the department. "We will continue to vigorously defend the health care reform statute in any litigation challenging it, and we believe we will prevail."

    ***********************

    The administrations referenence to Social Security seems like a poor choice given it was one of the reasons FDR chose to try and install himself as dictator through his infamous court packing scheme. Originally, the conservative judges on the court through it out. FDR basically bullied it through.

    I listened to the audio of the arguments on this case and it was nauseating. The justices truly were a disgrace and the administration wiped it's ass with the Constitution. It is unfortunate that the GOP was weak for so long on judicial power.

    And this is what we get.
     
  3. bill5
    Offline

    bill5 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    394
    Thanks Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +33
    For those wanting a reader's digest version, the US federal courts threw out a state lawsuit against a federal law. Wow what news.
     
  4. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,641
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,044
    Bill,

    I am not sure what this means.

    Are you suggesting that states can't challenge federal laws ?
     
  5. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,555
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,432
    one appeals court. some other circuit courts of appeal will agree. others won't. it's pretty certain that the supremes will get the case. the result will depend on whether they vote like rightwingnut partisan hacks or follow precedent which gives wide latitude in such matters.
     
  6. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,555
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,432
    who cares what cuchinelli says? he's also a liar since it is clear that the federal laws trump state law and the states can't un-do federal legislation.

    nice try, though.
     
  7. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    That is a pretty interesting choice of words Jillian and shows how little what the constitution says actually matters to you. I was pretty certain the role of the Supreme Court was to determine the constitutionality of laws presented to them, not decide whether or not a current law contradicts with previous laws (be they constitutional or not).

    Also interesting that you want them to uphold precedent. What precedent? There is basically no precedent for the federal government requiring people to purchase something from another private party.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2011
  8. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,641
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,044
    That is really quite a statement given the nature of the constitution and it's purpose.

    He isn't lying in that regard.

    What is unfortunate is that the GOP hasn't beat this drum as consistently as they should.

    Seems they only care about the 10th amendment when they are not in power.
     
  9. Dr.House
    Offline

    Dr.House Lives on in syndication!

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    14,800
    Thanks Received:
    3,482
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Princeton/Plainsboro
    Ratings:
    +3,488
    Oh puh-leeze....:rolleyes:

    It's not rightwing partisan hackery for everything you don't agree with from a leftist position...

    Wide latitude? In forcing all Americans to buy something they don't want?

    How are you going to feel when they rule that you city dwellers without a car are going to have to buy auto insurance to cover all those uninsured motorists getting into accidents on your streets? Talk about precidence....

    I love ya hon, buit you are way off on this one...
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Tech_Esq
    Offline

    Tech_Esq Sic Semper Tyrannis!

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,408
    Thanks Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +558
    There is no precedent for this act. There is no other law that forces every person to purchase some commercial item or service. Therefore, the Supremes, if they are following precedent will strike it down unless they are raving socialist lunatics bent on a enslaving a nation in a statist hell.

    This particular case was decided, or rather not decided since they didn't address the merits of the underlying case, by such raving socialist nutters. They on the one hand, said that the case was not ripe (to the College) and on the other said that the State had no standing (to Virginia). Unfortunately, they were clearly, no, glaringly wrong about the latter. I'm sure AG Cuccinelli speaks far more eloquently than I could on the reasons why the court was wrong, so look for that in the article.

    But, you are right Jillian. There are several splits in the circuits right now and they are definitely giving the Court a full record upon which to decide the case. You are also correct that it will be a 5-4 decision. My money says the Reagan appointee will not vote to allow this law to stand. At a minimum, the individual mandate will be stripped out.

    My guess is that Kennedy votes to cut the "baby in half" "Justice Kennedy concurring in part, dissenting in part" He'll concur in the no individual mandate and dissent on invalidating the law altogether. What's your bet, Jillian?
     

Share This Page