ext_284991 ([identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2011-09-08 01:04 pm

(no subject)

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.

[identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com 2011-09-09 12:40 pm (UTC)(link)
Perhaps, but the state is rather conspicuously not affected by this law, or at least the individual mandate portion that they seek to challenge. Yes, they have their law freeing individuals from being required to buy it, but a lot of states have rules that would free certain marijuana users from punishment. Such rules are meaningless due to supremacy.

[identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com 2011-09-09 04:30 pm (UTC)(link)
That's impermissible. As discussed in the full opinion, the states have no right to act as parens patriae, only the United States does, and so they cannot bring a suit on behalf of their affected citizens.

[identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com 2011-09-09 08:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, there you're arguing against just another area of standing law that doesn't agree with you, and law that's as rooted in the Constitution as the injury-in-fact requirement (the Court finds the parens patriae restrictions in the Supremacy Clause's necessary implications). So... *shrug*

[identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com 2011-09-09 04:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Also, Rule 23 (class actions) requires that the person bringing the suit be themselves a member of the class. So... yeah, there's no way that flies.