Obama Administration Scores Legal Victory On Health Care

[cal04]

Sam Stein
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/obama-health-care-legal-victory_n_818428.html

The Obama administration won a victory Thursday in the winding legal debate surrounding the president's signature health care law, as a federal judge in Mississippi threw out a suit challenging the constitutionality of the bill.

The judge, Keith Starret, who serves on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, ruled that plaintiffs suing over the coming implementation of the individual mandate did not demonstrate sufficient standing for him to take the case. He "granted in part" the administrations motion to dismiss the case, but gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint.

"The Court finds that the allegations of Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition, as stated therein, are insufficient to show that they have standing to challenge the minimum essential coverage provision of the PPACA . Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition without prejudice."

The ruling is welcome news for the president, who earlier this week suffered a legal setback when a federal judge in Florida called the individual mandate unconstitutional and ruled that as such, the entire health care law was void.

[bluestateguy]

1. Bush 43 appointed judge too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Starrett

[emulatorloo]

2. Will Fox News push this 24/7 like the ruling in Florida?

[Igel]

4. I don't see why anybody would push this ruling in the media.

It's a technicality. It says nothing whatsoever about the law, whether it's constitutional or not.

This sort of thing is why most of the court cases have been thrown out. Not because the judge thinks the law is good or bad, constitutional or unconstitutional, but because the judge can and in many cases must say, "I'm sticking my fingers in my ears, and have no choice but to do so. So be gone until I have no choice."

[Bandit]

3. How could anyone have standing when it hasn't even gone into effect yet?

How can they say they are being forced into buying insurance when it doesn't go into effect until 2014?...Any judge that would grant them standing would show partisan favor IMO.