Posted on 10/01/2013 6:43:03 PM PDT by BulletBobCo
A Florida orthodontist sued the Obama administration on Tuesday, insisting that the White House must abandon changes it has made on its own to the Affordable Care Act, instead obeying the letter of the law as Congress passed it.
The administration has made several tweaks to the Obamacare law, including a one-year delay of a measure that requires companies with 50 or more employees to offer them health insurance or pay financial penalties.
The law specifies an exact date when that feature is to go into effect – January 1, 2014 – but the White House announced in July that it would push that date back, angering some in Congress who saw the move as a unilateral power grab.
The lawsuit, filed by Dr. Larry Kawa, claims that the regulatory changes violate the Administrative Procedure Act and go beyond President Obama’s constitutional powers.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
About time! I’ve been urging someone to do this from the day Dear Leader “waived” it.
I’ve turned off and tuned out FNC. BOR is an arrogant bore and I won’t watch him any more. Hannity keeps saying the same things over and over. Juan Williams and the babbling Liberal schmucks make me want to throw things at the flat screen so I turn them off the minute their faces show up.
Judge Pirro is the only one left on Fox that I can stand to watch.
My daughter will need braces to help with a speech problem.
How does Obamacare address Orthodontics?
You have just described why viewers of all stripes are leaving the MSM in droves for the fertile fields of the blogosphere.
That is very good for conservatives. If liberals don't leave the MSM, they will be trapped within a dying host.
;-)
I spent a little while searching and did not see this reported in any US news outlet. Why do we have to go read British news sites in order to get US news that happens to be negative to the leftist cause? Yes, I know ...
Standing is one of the things that just suddenly appeared in the legal scene, it's not even all that new (IIRC less than a hundred years).
The ostensible purpose of standing is to weed out spurious legal claims, but as you see it's an indispensable tool for judicial-tyrants. Remember the USSC's ruling on the Proposition 8 case? In that the CA supreme court had certified the standing of the people of CA for the case, which the USSC invalidated as "not having standing" — now, you might be tempted to say "the supremem court CAN overturn decisions", but this isn't a decision we're talking about but 'standing'.
I suspect that the origin of standing is tied, somehow, to the shift from Constitutional law to Case Law; much of what's wrong with our current jurisprudence stems from that because in elevating case law to the level of the Constitution, the make case law superior to the Constitution if they will it. (After all, isn't the court's job to resolve the problem when two seemingly equal laws conflict?)
Democrats have been openly opposing Equal Protection since 1829.
Standing comes from suffering particularized, justiciable harm. If everybody was in the same boat they could say that nobody suffers particularized harm. But that is particularly the point of this guy’s suit: it is NOT everybody suffering the same. Some competitors are exempted. Because he is not exempted he incurs a cost that his exempted competitors don’t, and that is his particularized harm.
The harm is justiciable because the courts could declare that the exemptions are unconstitutional because they are against the law - and there would be a level playing field and this guy’s competitors would lose their advantage.
People ARE hurt when DC picks favorites, and it’s about time the illegality of that is pointed out and punished. Obamacare makes particular note that there are to be NO EXEMPTIONS.
A Florida orthodontist sued the Obama administration on Tuesday, insisting that the White House must abandon changes it has made on its own to the Affordable Care Act, instead obeying the letter of the law as Congress passed it.
The should also argue that Ocare is unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment equal protection before the law.
Well, they seem to have the theft part down pat.
lol
who wants to beat the court doesn’t give him
“standing”
the lefts newest trick.
And I will repeat this:
Remember this people, and REMEMBER THIS CLEARLY, these ********* who passed this piece of fascist dung attempting to pass off their MBS ponzi scam on ignorant signers, did it with overt partisan and bribes to the communists “Barts” and all, with NO compromise with the other aisle. NONE
And now they are parading their audacious file speak 24-7 that we are to compromise and come to the table on their terms. Thats right, now we’re the ones to come together?
I will not sign up for Obamacare, not today, not tomorrow, and not as long as I am alive. If every pissed off American did the same, this communist redistribution of wealth law would simply die under its own weight and implode.
Stay strong America, we will never be defeated if we all stand together against this out of control government, after all we created it under the constitution, we can take that same power back. Read Mark Levin's “The Liberty Amendments” for a strategic way to do just that, without Washington.
Exactly, people never seem to take that into account.
Why don’t we all have standing to sue? We are not being afforded equal protection at this point. Some citizens and groups are getting special treatment. I could very well see obamacare going down as the segue into standing for other “laws” that need to be tossed out as well.
Roberts had to rewrite it to turn a "penalty" into a "tax" so he could rule for the bloody thing in the first place.
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.