(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

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

That's actually not the reasoning. The reasoning is the United States constitution's language very obviously gives citizens of states standing in the Federal court system, and now in the 20th century all of the sudden the plain text is wrong because of some court decision. That's not the argument, and you really would do well to stop jumping to wrong conclusions.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Citizens of states != states, though. And it only does so in "cases or controversies."

I understand your desire to go against the last hundred years of legal development, but I don't really respect it.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

If we're to talk about situational context, like situational irony, legal development is an oxymoron. How can we go from having a court system interpreting the language of the law like any normal English-reading individual to "legal development" of immense restriction? So you may not respect me, and I will just as soon have an immense lack of respect for your exceeding lack of rational basis for your beliefs, but at the same time, you probably have to espouse your illogical doctrines to pass the bar. I won't hold that totally against you since everyone needs a vocation, but I can't consider you an honest individual. Anyone who doesn't think the federal government's contradiction of the 10th amendment and state law constitutes injury can't be terribly honest.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Nah, the bar can't oust you for personal beliefs about what the law *should* be. I just prefer to deal in the realities with which we are faced, rather than some idealized model of the law as it was centuries ago. The entire point and central strength of the common law model is that it develops and changes over time. Judges apply old principles to new cases, and thus create or illuminate new principles that had never before arisen, or were not dealt with.

I could agree with you with no problems with potential bar admission. I may not be able to say what you would agree with on the bar exam, but that's a test of how you would interact with the law as it exists, not the law as you would have it be, so that makes sense even if nobody on the bar examiners board agrees with it. So you can rest assured that I am being perfectly honest with you when I say that Virginia's law does not constitute an injury.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

As far as honesty is concerned, you may say you're being honest based on your knowledge of court procedure as it is today, but clearly in all our discussions you aren't on the same page as me. When I say being honest, I mean being valid as far as truth is concerned. If some court doctrine or principle contradicts a plain truth, it's not honest.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

There is a difference between honesty and truth. If I am wrong about a fact, but I sincerely believe it when I say it, I am honest but wrong. If I lie about what I believe to be true, and my lie by happenstance is the truth (which I misunderstood), then I am a dishonest truth-teller.