(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.

[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.

[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]

[telemann.livejournal.com]

rofl.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

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

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

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

[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.

[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.)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Yes, because it's a question of standing in this particular case, not whether the state has a constitutional power of nullification in general.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Nah, it's pretty much relevant to that. I'm sure if it was an opinion you agreed with such nuance would not matter.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

There's very little opinion, if any, in any of these posts. You basically say: "Here, watch this / read this. It's good/bad/dumb/boring/awful. Discuss." I'd be glad to see you expand a bit.

[zebra24.livejournal.com]

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

Wait, what?

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

You had already received and replied to this comment (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1150718.html?thread=91556862#t91556862) when you wrote this. I don't get it, doesn't that part of the ruling speak directly to whether the state has a constitutional power of nullification in general?

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

I didn't much get what you were saying, but OK :)

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

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

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Elections. Consequences I suppose :-)