Skip to comments.'Enforce it vigorously': New Obamacare lawsuit aims to bring down law...
Posted on 10/01/2013 6:43:03 PM PDT by BulletBobCo
click here to read article
Betsy McCaughey to Mark Levin: What the president is imposing on us today is NOT the Affordable Care Act
If the law exempts his competitor from a tax but not him, that ought to give him standing in my book.
Yeah, the trouble with these laws is they grant so much authority to the bureaucracy to make their own regulations. But that shouldn’t rule out a lawsuit based on equal protection. Obviously if they exempted all white people from the mandate only, that would be grounds for a suit.
Poll: 62 Percent Say the Health Care Law Implementation is Not Going Well, 60 Percent Want to Delay the Individual Mandate.
This is a September 12 poll. CNN poll saying 52 are against the UCA seems biased to me.
It should. But, in that case, it’s not going to be ripe for a while. He hasn’t been damaged yet. You can’t sue for redress if you have no damage.
a little off topic - But, I would like Equal Protection in the voting booth.
Someone with a pair. The republicans should have been raising holy hell from day one.
And NO WAIVERS! Nothing about this thing is Constitutional!
That is a terrific synopsis of the message from the media.
I don’t think Cruz knew how to handle O’Reilly - he had debate quotes lined up but figured O’Reilly wouldn’t understand it.
Listening to Hannity, I was wondering if anyone has asked the ones who support obamacare why they supported it and/or if they had recently received a rate increase or lost their insurance or job.
In other words try to ask them a question which requires them to think for themselves instead of spewing talking points. How does it affect them ?
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.
who wants to beat the court doesn’t give him
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.
Oh. I suppose I should note I was being sarcastic in the first line.
Florida news via the UK. Funny, I don’t see this news from FLORIDA reported in any FLORIDA media.
The word you’re looking for is Precedent. Most of our laws are based somewhat on laws that came before, decisions that came before.
Letting Obama get away with rewriting sections of Obamacare he finds politically damaging sets a VERY bad precedent.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Obama Is assuming powers not granted to the President (rewriting law). Couldn’t this orthodontist have standing as “the people” ?
It’s the Law of the Land!
Bet the case gets thrown out for standing, or something equally dumb.
Maybe. We have an outlaw President so anything is possible.
"After all, Prohibition was the law of the land (under the 18th Amendment), and the politics of its widespread loss of respect for the law resulted in its repeal (21st Amendment).
The 21st Amendment did not totally end Prohibition. The individual states could then vote in local option for either being wet or dry. But the power was stripped from the Federal government to enforce prohibition anywhere.
How was that for repeal and replace?
Let's be honest for once: ObamaTAX is based on Sharia Law.
>> ...tomorrow Congress can commit rape, murder and theft??!!!
> Well, they seem to have the theft part down pat.
Possibly murder*, too, provided it involves an Oldsmobile and a river.
Maybe the shift in the wind has something to do with the huge increase in litigation for monetary compensation. There you would have to have something like standing as we know it, but perhaps not for every other kind of case. Wish the Federalist Society would take this up, but maybe it is not a good issue in their eyes for some reason.
0bama is beginning to lift the veil on his Dictatorship, but few see it for what it is.
Which is why I have stopped watching Hannity... I have already mentioned why I stop watching O'Reilly a long time ago. Fox is NOT fair and balanced... they perhaps unwittingly advance progressive-ism by allowing the loonies to over-shout anyone with a reasonable point of view.
FR and Americans in general are going to have to come to the realization that the TEA PARTY is comprised of the people who work and produce and pay the government's bills - and the Tea Party is considered the most dire enemy by Washington and its lackey media!!! We are living in a tyranny by Stalinists and it is going to take a Hurculean effort to get this monkey off of our backs! I doubt it will happen via the ballot box.
If the Supreme Court can absurdly determine that those who worked to pass Prop 8 in California, and then fought their State all the way to the Supreme Court when their corrupt government refused to abide by Prop 8 (rolled over in the face of legal challenge), didn’t have standing, I’m sure they will come up with a theory here as well. (By the way, by that absurd reasoning the Supreme Court pretty much killed off the value of initiative nation-wide, since the whole point of initiative is direct action by the people when their government refuses to act.)
Not to mention this is the same court that ruled Obamacare was unconstitutional because it was beyond Congress’ powers, and then immediately said it could still enforce this unconstitutional law through a system of “taxes.” (Ignoring the unconstitutional conditions doctrine—the legislature may not do indirectly what it cannot do directly.) And it also didn’t deal with the problem that the “tax” is unlawful because the tax provisions arose in the Senate, not the House. (The challenge to that portion of Obamacare is still being fought in the D.C. Circuit by Pacific Legal Foundation.)
The Repubs should stall funding ObamaCare, as more and more problems with it come to light. Eventually, it will fall under its own weight.
You’re right. I’ve had no confidence in the courts for the last few years at least. Nothing that matters is anybody’s “business”, according to their rulings on standing in critical cases. This man has standing. Whether the courts will recognize that standing is a whole ‘nother story, as you correctly note. Right now we are basically functioning without a Constitution because our courts are so compromised.
Wasn’t there a report that the NSA had tapped the phones and emails of nearly all the judges in California? I wonder what the reasoning was...
That should be the mantra among the defunders also - no funding without a delay/exemption for all, or removal of all subsidies, waivers and exemptions for all (apply the law equally).
To paraphrase a famous moron:
After all, shouldn’t we all have some skin in the game?
Make Bammy put back all his waivers and exemptions and make sure they go in effect January 1.
Youll see a tidal wave GOP win after 11 months of original recipe Bammycare. Delaying it a year means nobody get to feel the pain prior to the election.
Its time America gets the goobermint they voted for. Instead , the morons in the GOP will save Democrats from themselves.
The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.-Abraham Lincoln
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.