(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

[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.

[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.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Man, you don't even stop to smell the roses before sprinting to scream "tu quoque," do you?

You're wrong. The decision had nothing to do with the constitutionality of the ACA. It explicitly avoids any decision on that grounds, even in dicta. This is not, in any way, a sign that "not everybody agrees that this law is unconstitutional." There was no constitutional issue here, just an application of existing constitutional standing principles to Virginia's claim of standing. Again: there was no discussion in the opinion of Virginia's argument about the constitutionality of the ACA. There was no constitutional issue decided here.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

By not recognizing that claim at all it sticks a burr under the saddle of people who want to refight the political battles of the 1830s.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Which is not at all what you insinuated, and are now defending by deflection. You said that it showed that people didn't agree with the view that the ACA is unconstitutional. It had absolutely nothing to do with the ACA.

[patriotress.livejournal.com]

In reading this thread I am curious why you persist on getting to Gunsinger's personal motives for presenting this, rather than challenging the content of what he is saying. Are you a psychologist?

Your contributions:
"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..."

"I'm sure if it was an opinion you agreed with..."

Personal inflammatory remarks are diversionary tactics. Do you fear the possible outcome of an intelligent conversation about the issues with this person? Something to think about.

You would contribute more if you would stick to the topic, and avoid the amature psychoanalysis.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

He's generally unable to stick to a topic, although it usually manifests in bringing in obscure historical allusions.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, and I'm not commenting on his psychology. I am noting that he's a double-standard about opinions he agrees with v. ones he disagrees with. If noting that qualifies me as a psychologist then I'll do as Lucy Van Pelt and take out a cardboard stand and put "The Headshrinker is in."

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

And that would make you doubly wrong.

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?

Re: Wait, what?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Not really. That quote is about why they should deny standing, not about nullification. What it says is that the courts will not decide if the states have a nullification power in this case. This is entirely different from saying no nullification power exists.