Thread: Health bill lawsuits are going nowhere

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by iravedic

Ultimately, this challenge is likely to fail at the trial court level as the issue is not ripe - the requirements only apply in the future and therefore the states currently lack standing to raise the issue. Generally, the courts will not rule on hypothetical issues. That being said, they picked the court to file suit in carefully. The Pensacola division of the Northern District of Florida is very conservative - and one of the most conservative Judges of the division was assigned to the case.

That may be true for the florida case, but virginia stands on it's own, given they passed a law specifically prohibiting the government from mandating health care insurance purchases on individuals. So....at least virginian's have standing in that respect.

As for ripeness......sure, nothing conveniently takes effect till 2013 or whenever. But the supreme court can side step around such things if it feels like it. wouldn't be the first time. That, or the same exact suits are brought in 2013 instead of now. For something as far reaching and as invasive as legislation like this is....I doubt the supreme court is going to wait to rule until it goes into effect, given the effects are substantial, and if unconstitutional, unjustified.

That will probably be the easiest to defeat as that will be killed by the Supremacy Clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Care to make it interesting?

I love the assumption that the courts are going to act as politically inept and petty as the congress and executive branch does. Keep believing that.

So then let's wager.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

That will probably be the easiest to defeat as that will be killed by the Supremacy Clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Might want to do a bit more investigation as to how that shit works.

the feds don't just pass a law and then say "surprise, everyone has to do what we say". They pass laws over the states so long as they don't violate things like the constitution you are quoting.

In effect....you're an idiot, and are reading wikipedia huffington post-level news outlet versions of what's really going on.

the supremacy clause is irrelevant if the commerce clause itself is being violated. If a law is unconstitutional, then the supremacy clause has no effect. "standing" is about whether or not there are actually people on the plaintiff's side that can show a real involvement in the issue, and not just hypothetical nonsense and made up cases.

For example, that guy (newdow) who sued about the pledge of allegiance (and recently lost) years ago lacked standing at the supreme court because he wasn't the legal guardian, and thus not the next friend or other authorized person to speak on behalf of the child that was being oppressed by the pledge of allegiance in school.

What did he do? he went and found parents of children in the same school/area, and brought a new case. Lost in the 9th circuit. Likely has standing...or at least the people on the plaintiff's side (the actual, legal parents of the children in the action) this time.

Has nothing to do with the supremacy clause.

This stuff is above your heads now. This would be like a conversation between normal people about how black holes work, and all of us referencing shit we looked up on discoverychannel.com and wikipedia. A waste of time for those who perhaps took some physics in their life.

You'll see.

It'll be fun re-visiting this thread down the road.

Remember the last time we did that?

The bill had an explanation into WHY it falls into interstate commerce. I don't have the exact line right now, but basically the effects of not having insurance fall well outside one state, the companies provide service in more than one state, and (I think this was in it, but I'm not sure) the drug companies certainly don't do business in just one state.