Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Experts say states' health care lawsuits don't stand a chance

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 06:10 AM
Original message
Experts say states' health care lawsuits don't stand a chance
Edited on Wed Mar-24-10 06:10 AM by babylonsister
Experts say states' health care lawsuits don't stand a chance

By James Rosen | McClatchy Newspapers

snip//

Several noted law professors said that there are significant legal hurdles in establishing the states' standing to challenge the health-care law and in persuading federal judges that it violates the Constitution.

Congress is empowered by the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce. Some opponents of the new law argue that Congress's mandate that individuals must purchase insurance from private vendors is unprecedented, because uninsured individuals aren't participating in commerce. Many constitutional law experts, however, said that the health insurance mandate is clearly within Congress' reach under the Constitution.

"It would be surprising if the (Supreme Court) says Congress can't regulate people who are participating in the $1 trillion health-care market," said David Freeman Engstrom, a Stanford University Law School professor. "The lawsuit probably doesn't have legs both as a matter of precedent and as a matter of common sense."

Sanford Levinson, a University of Texas Law School professor, said that Americans who choose not to purchase health insurance can pay a fine under the new law. Congress, he said, clearly has the authority to levy taxes and fines.

"As a technical matter, it's been set up as a tax," Levinson said of the penalties under the health-care law. "The argument about constitutionality is, if not frivolous, close to it," he said.

"You'd have to imagine that the five conservative Republicans on the Supreme Court will be willing to invalidate the most important piece of social legislation in 50 years on the basis of a highly tendentious and controversial reading of the Constitution."

more...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/23/90934/states-laws...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow2u3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 06:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. Contrary to repuke AGs' assertion, there are no unfunded mandates
All the mandates have Federal funding in the form of subsidies for middle-class policyholders. They're whining about rich people having to get insurance out of their own pockets, as if they couldn't afford to take out a policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 06:18 AM
Response to Original message
2. The five Dancing Supremes are corporate lackeys first and justices last.
They will never vote against making people buy crap from corporations. They love corporations. They believe corporations are people and deserve all the support this country can give the faceless, heartless money grubbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. bingo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 06:25 AM
Response to Original message
3. I've heard that a negative ruling would invalidate that part of the bill,
not all of it.

Interesting how Republicans should be against having people pay their fair share of something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 07:17 AM
Response to Original message
4. I also do not understand how they can file a suit on something in the future..
The individual mandates don't even kick in until 2014.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
5. But, winning in court may not really be the goal
according to my intercepts picked up by my tin-foil, it's a matter of showing solidarity and demonstrating the Government that brought us the War of Northern Aggression, along with its activist kangeroo Courts are ganging up to get 'us' again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I think this is true. It also explains Palin's function and those other kooks. They are solidifying
their base and they WILL hold this country hostage to the threat of Civil War II, read that Race War I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. There ARE people who look EAGERLY forward to such a prospect.
Maybe we should, cut our losses, subsidize everyone who wants out of there and then just the fuck let the rest of them go . . . ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Yeah, and they know these suits will fail but they will say it was due to liberal activist judges...
and the Teabaggers will cheer madly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
9. "It would be surprising if the (Supreme Court) says Congress can't regulate..."
"You'd have to imagine that the five conservative Republicans on the Supreme Court will be willing to invalidate the most important piece of social legislation in 50 years on the basis of a highly tendentious and controversial reading of the Constitution."

See Citizen's United v. Federal Elections Commission

Appalling and unlikely? Yes.

Surprising? With this court... no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greencharlie Donating Member (827 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
11. well...
the delicious irony is that a full blown single payer health care system is more constitutionally defensible than the public mandate...

And IF this makes it to the SCOTUS and those 5 "persons" are still there... I give it a 50/50 chance of being shit-canned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tledford Donating Member (633 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. What are the lawyers on freerepublic.com telling you? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
12. Obama, Constitutional Law Professor At Harvard, Too Stupid To Know His Signature HCR Bill
Is unconstitutional. Yeah. That's the ticket.

Seriously, the people making these arguments are demented.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. And deminted no doubt. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
13. That's pretty much the universary legal opinion, except from the RW terroriosts
who don't have a fucking clue anyway.

These whackos must really enjoy losing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Yeah, the RW terrorists seem have a different opinion..
In fact, I think they want to eliminate anyone who does not agree with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 18th 2017, 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC