Print Page | Close Window

American Citizens 2-----Social Agenda 14

Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Outside World
Forum Name: News, Info and Happenings outside Middletown
Forum Description: It might be happening outside Middletown, but it affects us here at home.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3534
Printed Date: Dec 22 2024 at 10:30pm


Topic: American Citizens 2-----Social Agenda 14
Posted By: Pacman
Subject: American Citizens 2-----Social Agenda 14
Date Posted: Dec 13 2010 at 5:00pm

U.S. Health-Care Law's Mandate Thrown Out by Judge

By Tom Schoenberg and Margaret Cronin Fisk - Dec 13, 2010

The Obama administration’s requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the plan.

U.S. District Judge http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Henry%20Hudson&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia, today said that the requirement in President http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Barack%20Obama&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - Barack Obama ’s health-care legislation goes beyond Congress’s powers to regulate interstate commerce. While severing the coverage mandate, which is set to become effective in 2014, Hudson didn’t address other provisions such as expanding Medicaid.

“At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance -- or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage -- it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate,” wrote Hudson, who was appointed by President http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=George%20W.%20Bush&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - George W. Bush in 2002.

The ruling is the government’s first loss in a series of challenges to the law mounted in federal courts in Virginia, Michigan and Florida, where 20 states have joined an effort to have the statute thrown out. Constitutional scholars said unless Congress changes the law, its fate on appeal will probably be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

‘Lot of Activity’

“There’s a lot of activity focused now on alternatives to the mandate,” said http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Dan%20Mendelson&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - Dan Mendelson , chief executive officer of Avalere Health, a Washington-based consulting firm. One option might be to provide access to all people, even ones with pre- existing conditions, to buy insurance and limit the times they could sign up.

“It’s using a carrot instead of a stick,” Mendelson said in a telephone interview before the ruling.

http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Robert%20Zirkelbach&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - Robert Zirkelbach , a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a health insurers’ Washington lobby group, declined to comment on the record about whether insurers have discussed alternatives with the administration or whether a policy could be designed to replace the effects of losing the individual mandate.

Hudson didn’t stop the government from moving ahead with implementing the law while an appeal is pending.

Virginia Attorney General http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Ken%20Cuccinelli&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - Ken Cuccinelli , who brought the suit, said in a statement he was “gratified we prevailed.”

“This won’t be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution,” he said.

Republican Senator http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Orrin%20Hatch&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - Orrin Hatch of Utah called the decision “a great day for liberty. Congress must obey the Constitution rather than make it up as we go along,” he said in a statement.

Appeals Court Hearing

The government may ask the judge to reconsider his ruling, or seek a hearing by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond. Two opinions from federal judges in Virginia and in Michigan have sided with the government on the law’s constitutionality.

Health plans rose as much as 2.7 percent after the ruling was announced, and then fell back. The Standard & Poor’s Managed Health Index of six insurers was up less than 1 percent at 1:44 p.m. in New York trading, led by a 1.1 percent increase for UnitedHealth Group Inc. of Minnetonka, Minnesota, the largest medical plan by sales. Aetna Inc. of Hartford, Connecticut, gained 1 percent.

White House spokesman http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Robert%20Gibbs&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - Robert Gibbs said at a press briefing today said that the administration still believes the legislation is constitutional.

‘Different Decision’

“One hundred and fifteen miles away, a different judge in a different district rendered a different decision,” Gibbs said, referring to a Nov. 30 ruling by U.S. District Judge http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Norman%20Moon&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - Norman Moon , in Lynchburg, Virginia. That decision upheld the act in a lawsuit brought by the evangelical Liberty University and five individuals.

“Our belief is that when all the legal wrangling is done, this is something that will be upheld,” Gibbs said.

Mark Hall, a professor at Wake Forest University School of Law, who serves on a federal advisory board set up to help implement the law, said that while the case is certain to go to the high court, the outcome is unpredictable.

“Some prominent conservative justices will go against it, but there is no serious indication that every single one will go against it,” he said in an interview before Hudson’s decision.

Cornerstone of Overhaul

Justice Department lawyers in court papers called the mandatory insurance measure the cornerstone of the overhaul as it pushes younger and healthier people into the insurance pool. Through the individual mandate and expansions of Medicaid and employer-based coverage, the law is estimated to provide 32 million more people with coverage by 2019, according to the http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/AmendReconProp.pdf - Congressional Budget Office .

The law bars insurers from denying coverage to people who are sick or imposing lifetime limits on costs. Without payments generated from the required policies, the health-insurance market would face extinction, the government argued. The mandate falls under Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce as $43 billion in unpaid medical bills are absorbed by the market each year, U.S. lawyers said.

“If people aren’t compelled to buy insurance and the insurance carriers are compelled to offer it, then many will simply wait until they are sick,” said http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=John%20Sullivan&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - John Sullivan , an analyst at Leerink Swann & Co. in Boston. “If the Supreme Court were to rule this law unconstitutional, then it would be back to the drawing board. You can’t just pull this part out of it.”

Virginia’s suit claimed Congress has only the power to tax, not to force participation in a market. Its case defended the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, a state law barring compulsory purchase of health insurance by its citizens.

Florida Suit

Florida, joined by 19 other states, filed a separate lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality and arguing it puts too big a burden on its budget by expanding state-run Medicaid programs. U.S. District Judge http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Roger%20Vinson&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Florida, is slated to hear arguments Dec. 16 on motions by each side to decide the case in their favor.

The Florida case, involving 20 states, has drawn the most attention from outside interests. The states are backed by 63 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, mostly Republicans, in a court brief while incoming House of Representatives Speaker http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=John%20Boehner&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - John Boehner , an Ohio Republican, and 32 Republican U.S. senators separately submitted papers arguing the legislation represents an unconstitutional expansion of congressional legislative powers.

Florida’s Attorney General http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Bill%20McCollum&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - Bill McCollum said he is hopeful Vinson will strike down the individual mandate and halt the expansion of Medicaid.

“The implementation of this law could add more than 1.9 million Floridians to the Medicaid program, a tremendous financial burden on our state at a time when our budget has no room for extra expenses,” he said in a statement today.

Economics Scholars

A group of about 40 economics scholars, including Nobel laureates http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Eric%20Maskin&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=en10_wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - Eric Maskin , http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=George%20Akerlof&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=en10_wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - George Akerlof and http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Kenneth%20Arrow&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - Kenneth Arrow , filed their own brief, arguing in favor of the legislative package.

The challenges brought by the attorneys general in Virginia and Florida are the most likely to reach the Supreme Court, according to health-care and constitutional lawyers.

“The Florida and Virginia cases have both been well briefed and well drafted,” said http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Peter%20Urbanowicz&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - Peter Urbanowicz , a managing director at Alvarez & Marsal Healthcare Industry Group in Washington.

The case is Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, 10-cv- 00188, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond).

To contact the reporters on this story: http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Tom%20Schoenberg&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - Tom Schoenberg in Richmond, Virginia, federal court at mailto:tschoenberg@bloomberg.net - tschoenberg@bloomberg.net ; http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Margaret%20Cronin%20Fisk&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja - Margaret Cronin Fisk in Southfield, Michigan, at mailto:mcfisk@bloomberg.net - mcfisk@bloomberg.net .

To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at mailto:drovella@bloomberg.net - drovella@bloomberg.net .




Replies:
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Dec 13 2010 at 5:57pm
I've yet to figure out if Obama is a socialist or communist.
 
People say socialist but he acts more like a communist. Ermm


-------------
No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !!


Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Dec 13 2010 at 6:23pm

Wikipedia: 

Communism is a /wiki/Sociopolitical - sociopolitical movement that aims for a /wiki/Stateless_%28society%29 - stateless and /wiki/Classless - classless /wiki/Society - society /wiki/Base_and_superstructure - structured upon /wiki/Common_ownership - common ownership of the /wiki/Means_of_production - means of production , free access to articles of consumption, the end of /wiki/Wage_labour - wage labour and /wiki/Private_property - private property in the means of production and real estate. #cite_note-columbia-0 - [1]
 
For some people there's no accusation far left enough for any Democrat.  It's never enough to be a Dem, you're always socialist, communist, Marxist, etc.  And most people using the terms have no idea about the differences.


Posted By: Mtown
Date Posted: Dec 13 2010 at 9:58pm
Judge Hudson is the third district court judge to reach a determination on the merits in one of the two dozen lawsuits challenging the health care law. The other judges, in Detroit and Lynchburg, Va., have upheld the law. Lawyers say the appellate process could last another two years before the Supreme Court settles the dispute.
The opinion by Judge Hudson, who has a long history in Republican politics in Northern Virginia, continued a partisan pattern in the health care cases. Thus far, judges appointed by Republican presidents have ruled consistently against the Obama administration, while Democratic appointees have found for it.


Posted By: StageRt
Date Posted: Dec 15 2010 at 7:18pm
And 14 other Judges have dismissed suits in their districts outright.
The score is : Americans 16  - *DGSDQ - 1

*= Don't Get Sick; Die Quick - the Republican Health Care Law


-------------
The Law is NOT Justice. It was NEVER Meant to be. Justice is the purview of the Jury.


Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Dec 15 2010 at 7:35pm

detail.php?c=2390501&t=UNCONSTITUTIONAL---Judge-Hudson-Rules-in-Virginia - UNCONSTITUTIONAL - Judge Hudson Rules in Virginia

12/13/10

By Hadley Heath

BREAKING NEWS - Judge Henry Hudson is the first federal judge to rule that ObamaCare's individual mandate is unconstitutional.  Stay tuned to http://www.healthcarelawsuits.org - www.healthcarelawsuits.org for the latest information.  Read the 42-page Opinion from Judge Hudson http://healthcarelawsuits.net/pdf/VAOpinionSummaryJudgment.pdf - here .  Here's what the experts are saying today:

Randy Barnett, Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown Law:

This decision is big deal.  We finally have a formal ruling that the mandate is unconstitutional.  Had it gone the other way, the administration would have crowed that every judge has dismissed the challenge, which would show the challenges to be frivolous.  No one can claim that now.  Thursday morning, Judge Vinson hears argument in the  Attorneys General lawsuit in Florida.  Having already expressed skepticism of the government's Commerce Clause theory, and dismissed its tax power claim, today's opinion can be expected to bolster Judge Vinson's instinct that this unprecedented claim of power is unjustified by existing precedents.

 

Carrie Severino, policy director and counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) and former law clerk for Justice Thomas:

JCN applauds today's decision for its recognition that the federal government's arguments in favor of Obamacare would effectively eradicate all limits on Congress.  This ruling should remind the Obama administration that  the people granted the national government limited, specifically enumerated powers through the Constitution, not a blank check to engineer American life from Washington.  We agree with Judge Hudson that the individual mandate is "neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution," and are confident that Judge Vinson will come to the same conclusion in the multi-state litigation currently pending in Florida.

 

Jonathan Adler, professor of law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law:

The federal district court’s decision declaring portions of federal health care reform unconstitutional reaffirms that the federal government has limited and enumerated powers.  The theories advanced by the federal government in support of the mandate were without bounds and could have justified virtually unlimited federal control of private activity.  Reforming America’s health care system is important, but just like everything else, from national security to environmental protection, it must be done in a way that’s consistent with constitutional principles.

 

Stephen B. Presser, professor of legal history, Northwestern University:

It will be some time (probably a year or two) before the United States Supreme Court finally decides this issue, but those (like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and perhaps the President of the United States himself) who ridiculed those of us who still championed a limited Constitution and pointed out that Obamacare went too far have now been vindicated.   When the speaker was told there was a powerful argument that Obamacare was unconstitutional, she reportedly asked "Are you serious?"  She and those who fail to understand our Constitutional scheme have now been taught a lesson by a wise Virginia federal judge.

 

Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, Editor-in-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review:

Yes, Virginia, there are limits on federal power.

Today is a good day for liberty.  And a bad day for those who say that Congress is the arbiter of Congress’s powers.  By striking down the individual mandate, Judge Hudson vindicated the idea that ours is a government of delegated and enumerated—and thus limited—powers.  Even if the Supreme Court has broadened over the years the scope of Congress’s authority to legislate under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, “the constraining principles articulated in this line of cases… remains viable and applicable to the immediate dispute.”

In short, we have come a long way from the days when pundits dismissed the lawsuits challenging the new health care law as frivolous political gimmicks.  This is just one district court—whose opinion is not binding on the judges who will now consider the government’s appeal—but we can now see the day where this unprecedented assertion of federal power is definitively rejected as fundamentally contrary to our constitutional order.

As Judge Hudson said, “Despite the laudable intentions of Congress in enacting a comprehensive and transformative health care regime, the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds.  Salutatory goals and creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers."

 

David B. Kopel, Adjunct Professor, Advanced Constitutional Law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law:

Judge Hudson's decision was solidly grounded in law. While recognizing that Supreme Court precedents have interpreted the congressional interstate commerce very broadly, he also understood that there are limits to federal power. In particular, he rejected that contention that the decision not to purchase a federally-designed health insurance policy is "economic activity." As he explained, declaring economic inactivity to be "economic activity" would give the federal government unlimited power over "housing, transportation, and nutritional decisions." Thus, the insurance purchase mandate "is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution."

Virginia's victory today increases the probability that the issue will be taken up by the Supreme Court. In analyzing the case, the Supreme Court will discover, as Judge Hudson did, that there "no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a persons's decision not to purchase a product."

In short, Obamacare is an unprecedented expansion of federal power far beyond the text of the Constitution and judicial precedents. The American people said so throughout 2009-10, and on November 4. On December 13, the federal district court acknowledged that they were correct.

 

Ilya Somin, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law:

Judge Hudson's ruling is important because it is the first to strike down the individual mandate. The opinion is absolutely right to emphasize that the mandate cannot be upheld under existing Supreme Court precedent because it does not regulate any kind of preexisting economic activity. If this law were to be upheld, Congress would have virtually unlimited power to impose any mandate it wishes. For example, it could require everyone to purchase cars or to exercise every day on the grounds that either would have an impact on the economy or on the market for health care.



Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Dec 15 2010 at 7:39pm
StageRt seems your state made the right decision.  Now we have two and it only takes one to make it to the Supreme Court.
 
Judge rejects motion to dismiss lawsuit against health care law
By: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnn-senior-producer-bill-mears/ - CNN Senior Producer Bill Mears

(CNN) - A federal judge in Florida on Thursday rejected a motion by the government to dismiss some counts of a multi-state challenge to the sweeping health care reform signed into law by President Barack Obama earlier this year.

The ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson means the lawsuit filed by attorneys general from Florida and 19 other states can proceed on questions of whether the health care law is constitutional in requiring citizens to obtain health care coverage or face financial penalties, as well as forcing states to expand Medicaid.

Vinson threw out four other counts of the lawsuit.



Posted By: Bocephus
Date Posted: Dec 15 2010 at 7:45pm
Originally posted by StageRt StageRt wrote:

And 14 other Judges have dismissed suits in their districts outright.
The score is : Americans 16  - *DGSDQ - 1

*= Don't Get Sick; Die Quick - the Republican Health Care Law


I think you got that backwards that would be:

Americans 1

Social agenda 16

If its so great of a law then why did all the major unions that pushed so hard to get it passed through congress get waivers and do not have to abide by it...hmmm

Obama care is clearly an assault on the middle class in America and another attempt by a socialistic led government to "redistribute the wealth"

STageRt is that you AJ ?


Posted By: StageRt
Date Posted: Dec 15 2010 at 8:00pm
Hudson's ruling is Appealed to the 4th District.
By appointment:

1 Judges by R. Reagan - Wilkinson
5 Judges by B. Clinton - Gregory, King, Motz(f), Michael, Traxler
2 Judges by G. H. W. Bush - Niemyer, Hamilton
3 Judges by G. W. Bush - Agee, Duncan(f), Shedd
3 Judges by B. Obama - Davis, Keenan(f), Wynn

(f) = female

-------------
The Law is NOT Justice. It was NEVER Meant to be. Justice is the purview of the Jury.


Posted By: StageRt
Date Posted: Dec 15 2010 at 8:07pm
No, it's not AJ. You need to study better. The Unions did not get a waiver. What they, and some others, got was a delay in the Excise Tax application. In 2018 ALL 'Cadillac' Plans will be subject to that tax.

http://factcheck.org/2010/12/health-care-law-waivers/

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/cadillac-plans-and-unions-correlation-minimal/


-------------
The Law is NOT Justice. It was NEVER Meant to be. Justice is the purview of the Jury.


Posted By: StageRt
Date Posted: Dec 15 2010 at 8:12pm
"Vinson threw out four other counts of the lawsuit."

Now this case will be heard by the Florida District Judge. It's just now getting to the point the other 3 cases have passed.

Anybody with half a legal brain knew this thing was going to wind up in the Bush Court.

BTW, there's a movement down here, IF the case ultimately gets decided in favor of the Administration, to sue the Attorney General for Malfeasance in Office and wasting the taxpayers money.


-------------
The Law is NOT Justice. It was NEVER Meant to be. Justice is the purview of the Jury.


Posted By: StageRt
Date Posted: Dec 15 2010 at 8:22pm
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson was appointed by R, Reagan. 

-------------
The Law is NOT Justice. It was NEVER Meant to be. Justice is the purview of the Jury.


Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Dec 15 2010 at 8:49pm
Originally posted by StageRt StageRt wrote:

Anybody with half a legal brain knew this thing was going to wind up in the Bush Court.

What is it with people now a days who can't have a conversation without resorting to insults.  It is without doubt that at least one case will reach the Supreme Court.  When is the question some want it now some want the issue to play out in the lower courts.  i would say it is going to go the lower Court route first,  So look for this to hit the Supreme court in a year or more, unless it is fast tracked for some reason.
 
Hell if the people decided to get together and sue every politician or Public Official that wasted money we would have no politicians nor Public officials.  Knock yourself out down there in Florida.   


Posted By: StageRt
Date Posted: Dec 15 2010 at 9:44pm
Sorry Pacman. That was not meant as a personal insult.

Last best guess I heard on hitting SCOTUS is about 2 years. That was Jeffery Toobin's guess.
Cuccinelli filed their suit March 23. It's now December.
The Attorneys General case in Florida is along the same legal lines. Although filed at approximately the same time, there are 20 plaintiffs instead of one. Obviously, it's taking more time for the Judge to go through the mountain of plaintiff and amicii briefs. He did pare it down to just the one issue.

I don't know how long the Appeals Hearings will last.

SCOTUS will probably wait for all of the cases to come through Appeals before taking up the issue.

Our Legislature in Florida has a consistent habit of passing unConstitutional Laws. Maybe it's the salt water or, as someone posed, they think since Florida and Federal both start with the letter 'F', we're on an equal footing when it comes to law.
That and SCOTUS handing the 2000 election to Bush.


-------------
The Law is NOT Justice. It was NEVER Meant to be. Justice is the purview of the Jury.


Posted By: Bocephus
Date Posted: Dec 16 2010 at 2:53am
Originally posted by StageRt StageRt wrote:

No, it's not AJ. You need to study better. The Unions did not get a waiver. What they, and some others, got was a delay in the Excise Tax application. In 2018 ALL 'Cadillac' Plans will be subject to that tax.

http://factcheck.org/2010/12/health-care-law-waivers/

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/cadillac-plans-and-unions-correlation-minimal/


I'm not that worried about studying it more,I know the basic facts that the fat cat union bosses pushed hard with lip service and money to help get this monstrosity passed but yet they get a delay in the tax call it pay back from obama and the leftist loonies.


Posted By: Neil Barille
Date Posted: Dec 16 2010 at 6:38am
He don't want to hear about no Jeffrey Toobin.  Who da hell is he? Bocephus ain't never heard of him on FauxNews.
 
In Bocephus' world, the last thing we need to worry about is being a fair and competitive society.  In his world, it's ever' man for hisself.  And if that means the U.S. falls farther behind other western countries in edu-ma-cation, infant mortality, life span, gun violence, well dadgumit...dem's the breaks!  Cuz we're FREE here in Amurica!  Freedom fries forever -- yeehaa!


Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Dec 16 2010 at 6:27pm
I assume the Supreme Court and its 5 Republican judges will never dream of overturning this law by "legislating from the bench".  That would make them the dreaded activist judges that conservatives scream about so often.


Posted By: StageRt
Date Posted: Dec 16 2010 at 7:37pm
Kennedy is the key. In a prior case Scalia upheld the Commerce Clause. It involved wheat. By growing his own, the farmer would not be buying wheat at the support price. Scalia wrote that this would effect Interstate Commerce and therefore the Farmer lost.
Not that I'm in any way wishing for this, but Scalia is in his middle 70s. There's no guarantee he will even be around in 2 years to hear the case. And Thomas' wife may just shoot his dumb arse.


-------------
The Law is NOT Justice. It was NEVER Meant to be. Justice is the purview of the Jury.


Posted By: StageRt
Date Posted: Dec 17 2010 at 12:14am
THAT would never happen. I mean it only took 212 years to discern that corporations are 'people' after a corporation was a prime cause of the Revolution.

All those other courts were just obtuse.


-------------
The Law is NOT Justice. It was NEVER Meant to be. Justice is the purview of the Jury.


Posted By: StageRt
Date Posted: Dec 17 2010 at 12:18am
Don't forget about all them corporate bosses on the 'A' Plans that also get the delay.
Your 'C' plan doesn't qualify as Cadillac.

-------------
The Law is NOT Justice. It was NEVER Meant to be. Justice is the purview of the Jury.



Print Page | Close Window