Posted on 10/13/2010 8:48:04 PM PDT by Libloather
Another Setback for Administration’s Legal Defense Of ObamaCare
Posted by Cory L. Andrews
Oct. 13 2010 - 7:29 pm
The Obama administration suffered another setback today in Virginia v. Sebelius, one of several lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the federal health reform law’s individual mandate provision. In papers filed in opposition to Virginia’s summary judgment motion, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius advanced a tenuous eleventh hour legal argument. Purporting to rely on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Sebelius argued that Virginia’s failure to join the Secretary of the Treasury in the lawsuit is fatal to the case and entitles the federal government to win. In other words, the Secretary argued that because the Treasury Secretary is the official responsible for administering the Internal Revenue Code (which is the mechanism for assessing penalties on Americans who choose not to purchase health insurance), the court cannot award complete relief in the case because the Treasury Secretary, as an indispensable party, has not received adequate notice of the lawsuit.
It took U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson only two and a half pages to dispense with such a frivolous argument. “Both cabinet secretaries [HHS and Treasury] are represented by the Attorney General of the United States, who is counsel of record in this case,” the Judge’s order stated. Accordingly, “[t]he real party in interest, the United States government through its Attorney General, has received notice of this lawsuit and an opportunity to respond.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.forbes.com ...
YEA!
Ping.
This is the ticket!
Between this mess , and the states suing Obamacare over the “individual mandate” should keep their sorry A$$es tied up in court for a good long time!
The arguments they are advancing in court are BIZARRE ~ not even the kind of stuff you can hear people come up with while drinking beer down at the Legion hall on Saturday night.
I suspect that once we get into the deeper parts of the coming investigations we will be finding out that an awful lot of these people are strung out junkies who should be nowhere near anything important.
Between this mess , and the states suing Obamacare over the “individual mandate” should keep their sorry A$$es tied up in court for a good long time!
__________________________________________________________
Thought this was a different issue...my bad!
I love Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli! He’s taking right to these guys!
Go KEN!!
>>”There’s an old saying often taught to students in law school: If the facts hurt your case, argue the law. If the law hurts your case, argue the facts. If you can’t argue either the facts or the law, argue procedure.”<<
And the VA and anti-individual mandate suits don’t exhaust the bases to overturn it.
The moment a Federal bureaucrat tries to interfere in an actual medical decision, a suit citing Roe v. Wade as precedent for the government having no right to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship can be filed. It will be delightful to watch the left have to attack the “reasoning” in Roe v. Wade to try to save socialized medicine. And the case is a win either way—either Obamacare or abortion-on-demand goes down.
Good point.
Please ~ping~ me to articles relating to the 10th Amendment/States Rights so I can engage the pinger.
If you want on or off the ping list just say the word.
Tenth Amendment Chronicles Thread
Tenth Amendment Center
Firearms Freedom Act
Health Care Nullification
| CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES |
Also known as: IF YOU HAVE THE FACTS ON YOUR SIDE, POUND THE FACTS; IF YOUU HAVE THE LAW ON YOUR SIDE, POUND THE LAW; IF YOU HAVE NIETHER THE LAW NOR THE FACTS ON YOUR SIDE, POUND THE TABLE.
Take from that what you will.
Egad.
Some law school wasted an awful lot of oxygen educating these dummies.
Whaddaya expect from her ???
When ya got nuthin’ to argue, ya throw as much sh*t against the wall as ya can - hopin’ that some of it will stick ...
Just sayin’ ...
I was wondering if this invented living constitutional privacy “right” would apply to the Feds demanding data for a centralized health care computer system from private insurers.
I don’t want the government having my health care information unless, God forbid, I am insured by the government.
iPhone Bumperoonie
ObamaCare is the first Islamic tax on non-Muslims in the United States. ObamaCare is a jizya or tax in the infidels. Muslims are exempt from the tax.
Maybe some day the cowardly talk radio hosts or pundits will mention this. Meanwhile - a bunch of them are anti-birthers. They do not want to offend Prince Al Waleed because he is a major shareholder in Fox News, ABC News, CNN and multi tens of billions deals with GE and their trifecta of sh*t NBC, CNBC and MSNBC.
Maybe Ken Cucinelli will be our Geert Wilders.
He also has deals with Bloomberg and Viacom/CBS.
Tenuous - Having little substance; flimsy
Specious - apparently correct or true, but actually wrong or false
Take your pick, as to FEDs case.
Most people have forgotten HIPAA which forbids sharing of medical data, except under very strict circumstances. And then only to parties involved. It does NOT allow for federal databases.
So we have two laws in conflict. I’m sure that any lawyers out there can say what law rules, since HIPAA is NOT repealed, nor is it even mentioned.
I’m guessing that you either obey the first law and violate the second or you obey the second law and violate the first. Classic Catch-22.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.