(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

[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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It was until Obama appointed two of 'em.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Elections. Consequences I suppose :-)

[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.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

To have standing you have to A PERSON and have suffered SOME DAMAGES to challenge the constitutionality of something. It's not even about the individual mandate.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

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

[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.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

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.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

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?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

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

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

This law right here: to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party implies the states have the capability to be roving constitutional watchdogs of sorts. This is a question of whether the United States government has the authority to do what it's doing. I tell you this: when the State legislatures are responsible for amending the constitution, they have a similar watchdog power.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Nobody has 'watchdog power' except the courts. This is about standing for a lawsuit.

The Constitution doesn't just grant everyone blanket power to do lawsuits.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that's nonsense, not only based on my plain English understanding of what the constitution says, but also based on the fact that this is actually court doctrine rather than actual law. The constitution does, in fact do that.

Prior to it the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29#cite_note-12

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Virginia is not a person.

Even for an individual, they must still demonstrate standing. It's not automatic.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

The funny thing about that is, Virginia may not be a person in the organic sense, but it is a corporate entity, just like any other corporation in business. Virginia's standing in federal court is the United States is acting in a manner which is not constitutional, and consequently, economy injury will occur. Some Virginian is unemployed, can't get a job even though they've demonstrated they've worked hard at getting a job, then they get penalized for not having insurance? How is that not injury? lol @ injury in this context

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Virginia may not be a person in the organic sense, but it is a corporate entity, just like any other corporation in business.

Corporations do not actually have the same legal rights as people. That's just a fiction. They're not actual people, and they're not treated as people under the law.

Virginia is not a corporate entity; it's a state. If you want to look at the definition of a state, you can look at the Constitution.

ome Virginian is unemployed, can't get a job even though they've demonstrated they've worked hard at getting a job, then they get penalized for not having insurance? How is that not injury? lol @ injury in this context

THAT PERSON would have the right to sue. That person. Not a third party. Also, IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE LAW, it says they will SUBSIDIZE the health insurance if you are unemployed.

This is so stupid. Can you believe that I don't actually support the individual mandate? I think it's stupid, but that doesn't magically mean that the state of Virginia has standing to sue.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

The state of Virginia has standing to sue because the Congress passed a law which is not derived from any honest interpretation of the constitution. Congress broke the law and the court claims they have no standing to assert Congress' dishonesty. That actually makes all three branches of the government dishonest.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

That's not standing under the legal definition of standing.

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

From that definition, it actually is.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Where?

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Redressability is the only road block where it not having standing would be valid. This is a terrible doctrine because it can lead us to a path where the judge makes an arbitrary decision, like a Democrat appointed by Obama who accepts an inherent contradiction in the law which technically does not exist.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

What? I asked you to show me where Virginia has standing.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

I just did.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Redressability? How does it have that? It needs the first two before that. Demonstrate how Virginia has injury, and subsequently causation please, then we'll get to redressability.