(no subject)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Federal appeals court blocks state lawsuit over health care reform law

...the three-judge panel concluded Thursday the state lacks the jurisdictional authority to challenge the 2010 law.

A separate lawsuit by private Liberty University also was rejected on similar grounds.

This leaves the question of who the hell does have standing?

The Richmond-based court becomes the second such federal court to uphold the constitutionality of ...

The court ruled on technical grounds, not the larger constitutional questions...

Who is worse, the reporter that writes self-contradicting articles, or the editor who lets it through to print?

I can't put my opinion on here, because I'm asking questions I don't actually know the answer to.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And this is of course a sign that not everybody agrees that this law is unconstitutional. Interesting how such decisions are vague and self-contradictory when they disagree with ideological principles and concise and accurate when they agree with said principles.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The ruling had nothing to do with the constitutionality of it. Pay attention.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It does have to do with the constitutional issue of nullification Tea Partiers want to resurrect from the grave.

A federal appeals court has tossed out Virginia's lawsuit against the sweeping health care reform effort championed by President Barack Obama, after the three-judge panel concluded Thursday the state lacks the jurisdictional authority to challenge the 2010 law.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I see you conveniently left out the most important part:

"If we were to adopt Virginia's standing theory, each state could become a roving constitutional watchdog of sorts; no issue, no matter how generalized or quintessentially political, would fall beyond a state's power to litigate in federal court. We cannot accept a theory of standing that so contravenes settled jurisdictional constraints," said the ruling.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Interesting, since that's one of the most consistently conservative circuits in the country.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It was until Obama appointed two of 'em.

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

It is not a particularly radical ruling to say that a state does not have standing to argue that a mandate on individuals is unconstitutional. The state is not a party to such a mandate.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It's not important to my post, as I'm not saying that they made a wrong decision.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The reasoning behind WHY they blocked it sure as hell is important to your post.

This leaves the question of who the hell does have standing?

This question is what I'm referring to. You seemed honestly surprised that they didn't have any legal standing.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

This law right here: to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party implies the states have the capability to be roving constitutional watchdogs of sorts. This is a question of whether the United States government has the authority to do what it's doing. I tell you this: when the State legislatures are responsible for amending the constitution, they have a similar watchdog power.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

I can't put my opinion on here

Of course you can't. Most (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1008958.html) of your posts consist of (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1016798.html) some copypasta (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1150718.html) (or a video (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1135721.html)) plus a single line (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/984288.html) or two.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Incorrect. All of my posts follow the same format. All of them, not most. And that format is: URL to article, quote from article, commentary. Occasionally, as in this case, there will be multiple quotes with commentary on each quote. Commentary is always including my opinion, in some form. The length of the commentary is irrelevant. (To head off a potential objection, a video combines the URL and the quote into one object.)

[zebra24.livejournal.com]

That's usually better than lot's of crap based on couple stupid ideas... :)

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Let's just say we'd err on the side of content rather than form.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

This leaves the question of who the hell does have standing?

Maybe nobody. Maybe people who are actually affected by it as-applied.

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

I suspect, but I am to lazy to read the actual ruling, that someone would have to be in danger of paying the $800 fine to have standing over the individual mandate.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Ultimately this whole ordeal is a matter of construction. Will you agree with the man who wrote the constitution who said if your construction is limitless then you defeat the purpose of enumeration of power, or will you disagree with him and defeat the purpose of enumeration of power? You may think you're being given a false dilemma. You would be wrong. If you use the general welfare clause as a way to construct an argument of going from the general to any particular you please, you have the power to do whatever you please. Why bother enumerating power?

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

I am pretty sure that court was simply restating a prohibition on third party standing.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It's funny that Tea Partiers/Republicans are gnashing their teeth about the Health Care Reform, even though it's all direct give-aways to the health insurance companies, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND SOCIALISM.

[existentme.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Pre-cisely.

The irony doth burn.

[patriotress.livejournal.com]

Although I see you have your cheerleaders on this, your statement is unclear. Apparently they understand, but would you clarify a bit for the rest of us?

"even though it's all direct give-aways to the health insurance companies"

Precisely how does Health Care Reform provide only "direct give-aways to the health insurance companies"

and,

When you refer to "the health insurance companies" do you mean *private* health insurance companies as they exist now, or our future health insurance company, the U.S. Government?

And, whether it's the former or the latter, why would "Tea Partiers/Republicans", as you call them, approve of giveaways to insurance companies in any form? This seems to be the point you're making. Please clarify. Thanks.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

"Why don't people think the way I think they think? Why?!!?"

Why aren't teaparty Republicans gung ho about a move by the gov't to have greater power while enriching a select few. Why!?!? It's almost like as if they're not total idiots. But you show them. You do the dumb thing and grow the strength of gov't while enriching a select few. Don't let those idjits think they're the boss of you.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Why is that funny? Tea Party people don't want to give the health insurance companies anything.