Federal appeals court blocks state lawsuit over health care reform law - CNN.com
Another political witch hunt bites the dust.
Another political witch hunt bites the dust.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
For those wanting a reader's digest version, the US federal courts threw out a state lawsuit against a federal law. Wow what news.
Federal appeals court blocks state lawsuit over health care reform law - CNN.com
Another political witch hunt bites the dust.
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.
Federal appeals court blocks state lawsuit over health care reform law - CNN.com
Another political witch hunt bites the dust.
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.
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.
Federal appeals court blocks state lawsuit over health care reform law - CNN.com
Another political witch hunt bites the dust.
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.
Federal appeals court blocks state lawsuit over health care reform law - CNN.com
Another political witch hunt bites the dust.
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.
Federal appeals court blocks state lawsuit over health care reform law - CNN.com
Another political witch hunt bites the dust.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Consider the source.That is a pretty interesting choice of words Jillian and shows how little what the constitution says actually matters to you.
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...Are you suggesting that states can't challenge federal laws ?