talkpolitics | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

They blocked it because they said the state doesn't have standing. Why the state thought it did have standing isn't that relevant, as there are multiple arguments for why they could have had standing.

You seemed honestly surprised that they didn't have any legal standing.

I'm not surprised, I'm annoyed that it seems like they don't think anyone has standing to challenge it, even those obviously affected by it.

there are multiple arguments for why they could have had standing.

None of which hold up in court.

I'm not surprised, I'm annoyed that it seems like they don't think anyone has standing to challenge it, even those obviously affected by it.

There's hundreds of CURRENT lawsuits about this issue with INDIVIDUALS who DO have standing RIGHT NOW. Do you pay attention to these issues you apparently care so much about at all?

Until they get to the upper level, they aren't relevant.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only