Virginia's lawsuit against HC law thrown out

Listening

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
14,989
Reaction score
1,647
Points
260
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.
 

bill5

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
394
Reaction score
34
Points
16
For those wanting a reader's digest version, the US federal courts threw out a state lawsuit against a federal law. Wow what news.
 

Listening

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
14,989
Reaction score
1,647
Points
260
For those wanting a reader's digest version, the US federal courts threw out a state lawsuit against a federal law. Wow what news.
Bill,

I am not sure what this means.

Are you suggesting that states can't challenge federal laws ?
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,080
Reaction score
15,759
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,080
Reaction score
15,759
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
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.
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.
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
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.
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:

Listening

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
14,989
Reaction score
1,647
Points
260
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.
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.
 

Dr.House

Lives on in syndication!
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
14,800
Reaction score
3,764
Points
48
Location
Princeton/Plainsboro
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.
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...
 

Tech_Esq

Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
4,408
Reaction score
560
Points
48
Location
Northern Virginia
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.
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?
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,934
Reaction score
9,960
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
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.
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 complies 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.
Jillian believes that only specially trained people can interpret what the Constitution says. You know her buddies Lawyers.
 

Tech_Esq

Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
4,408
Reaction score
560
Points
48
Location
Northern Virginia
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.
The state law did not try to undo what the feds did. The state law was enacted prior to the federal law. The state law simply said that we Virginians did not have to purchase any insurance. Since all powers not delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution are reserved to the States (or the people) and Insurance has ALWAYS been a proper and legitimate province of the state governments, it was certainly a legitimate law for the state to pass. As one who talks so much about Stare Decisis surely you recognize that the feds are going way out of their previous functional area to start legislating in this area of state law.

But, leaving that argument aside, you claim that the feds are enabled by the Supremacy clause, to push the states from the field. In fact, that is only true if the feds are legislating within the bounds of Article I, Section 8. That begs the question rather than answering it. So the Supremacy Clause is of no moment. Either the feds have the power under Art. I, Section 8, the Commerce Clause (or to the utter shame of the current administration, as if they were capable of shame, the taxing and spending clauses of Article I, Section 8 and the 16th Amendment) or they don't. The Supremacy Clause argument adds nothing to the discussion.
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
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.
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 complies 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.
Jillian believes that only specially trained people can interpret what the Constitution says. You know her buddies Lawyers.
Apparently. What a joke the concept of the 'constitutional scholar' is. Understanding the document is not rocket science. The authors of it intended for the entire citizenry to understand their rights and the obligations of government. Anyone who tries to to sell you on the notion that 'well you just don't understand what it says' simply wishes it allowed something it doesn't.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
67,460
Reaction score
29,865
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
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.
The state law did not try to undo what the feds did. The state law was enacted prior to the federal law. The state law simply said that we Virginians did not have to purchase any insurance. Since all powers not delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution are reserved to the States (or the people) and Insurance has ALWAYS been a proper and legitimate province of the state governments, it was certainly a legitimate law for the state to pass. As one who talks so much about Stare Decisis surely you recognize that the feds are going way out of their previous functional area to start legislating in this area of state law.

But, leaving that argument aside, you claim that the feds are enabled by the Supremacy clause, to push the states from the field. In fact, that is only true if the feds are legislating within the bounds of Article I, Section 8. That begs the question rather than answering it. So the Supremacy Clause is of no moment. Either the feds have the power under Art. I, Section 8, the Commerce Clause (or to the utter shame of the current administration, as if they were capable of shame, the taxing and spending clauses of Article I, Section 8 and the 16th Amendment) or they don't. The Supremacy Clause argument adds nothing to the discussion.
BINGOOOOOO!

This Constitution,and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof(read: Article 1, Section 8); and all treaties made,or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
As per normal, the "living rules" crowd likes to shove those seven little words into the Memory Hole.
 
Last edited:

Intense

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
44,909
Reaction score
6,775
Points
48
What the Supreme Court can't make Right, Constitutional Amendment can. Something We, as a People should Never Forget.

Where the Injustice is great, the pain and suffering, the effect, it is up to us to concentrate the focus, on the remedy, what ever is at stake. No mechanism of of greater importance than It's reason for being, It's Purpose.
 

Wiseacre

Retired USAF Chief
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
6,025
Reaction score
1,297
Points
48
Location
San Antonio, TX
" The three judges from the 4th Circuit hearing the case -- Diana Gribbon Motz, Andre Davis, and James Wynn-- all were named to the bench by Democratic presidents. "

Any questions?
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
51,652
Reaction score
16,068
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
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.
There is no such precedent whatsoever that allows the federal government to force you or me to buy a product, none whatsoever, and when they strike it down as unconstitutional it will be the appropriate legal action to push back on this gross abuse by our elected officials.
 

Listening

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
14,989
Reaction score
1,647
Points
260
What the Supreme Court can't make Right, Constitutional Amendment can. Something We, as a People should Never Forget.

Where the Injustice is great, the pain and suffering, the effect, it is up to us to concentrate the focus, on the remedy, what ever is at stake. No mechanism of of greater importance than It's reason for being, It's Purpose.
First the Supreme Court isn't supposed to make anything "right". It is supposed to interpret the Constitution within the scope of the powers allocated the federal government.

They should have never touched Roe.

To your second point, I think that is an important point If the disucssion included this as an objective, people would be hardpressed not get involved in the discussion.
 

bill5

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
394
Reaction score
34
Points
16
Are you suggesting that states can't challenge federal laws ?
I'm suggesting this sounds like someone auditing their own taxes. It's not so surprising that the feds dismiss a state's objection to a federal law. Yeah I know that's an oversimplification but still...
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top