Skip to comments.All too soon, ObamaCare will give us 'Standing'
Posted on 12/07/2013 3:06:33 AM PST by markomalley
Among the many blessings granted us by ObamaCare (PPAHCA), a new one will be coming soon, starting in January 2014. We will acquire "standing."
Legally, the word standing refers to the "ability to initiate a lawsuit." There are three requirements for Article III (tort code) standing: (1) demonstrable injury in fact, not in the future, not hypothetical or conjectural; (2) proof of a causal link between the injury and the challenged conduct or specific legislation (when suing the government); and (3) "likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable [Court] decision."
Despite all the weeping and wailing on every media outlet, ObamaCare has not given us "standing" for the obvious reason that it has not actually affected anyone yet. All those insurance cancellations take effect some time in 2014. All those additional costs will be felt starting in 2014 and escalating from there. All that care denied or deferred will happen next year and beyond.
True, Washington is already spending money we do not have and appears to be welshing on the promises made, but any harm accruing is conjecture at present, not fact.
Ignore the overwhelming mass of contradictory details. Look beyond the failures of healthcare.gov. Pay no attention to the inherent contradictions in the law, the repeated changes in deadlines, and the constant ad hoc crisis management. Give no credence to the political posturing on both sides of the aisle. Eschew all those loaded phrases like medical injustice, economic redistribution, greedy bastards, and Father Knows Best. Put aside (for a moment) your personal financial circumstances.
Even put aside, if you can, the president's grandiose (and grandly mendacious) promise…
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
If the courts accept our standing and set a date for a hearing/trial, why should I think I'll get satisfactory results from a packed court ?
You need more than standing. You need a cause of action with provable tortious conduct by someone.
Who? The President?
Impeachable conduct, for sure, but that’s not actionable in the court system, is it?
Congress? The Democrats? Nothing actionable there either. The remedy is to vote the bustards out.
I just don’t think any private suit against anyone involved will gain one bit of traction without a legally sufficient cause of action.
You won’t get a “satisfactory” result from ANY court without provable tortious conduct.
3" of new snow last night ... I'll be sitting in by the fire drinking coffee and reading .. and nodding off .. and reading .. and nodding off ....
I think suing is still a great idea, particularly for the LoFo voters and the other usual victims. When they become frustrated, let them howl with rage. Read some Alinsky. Lawsuits will destabilize the authoritarians.
“You need a cause of action with provable tortious conduct by someone.”
Obama is ineligible to be President because he naturalized as a U.S. Citizen in 1983. Naturalized U.S. citizens are ineligible to be President, yet they are eligible to receive votes from Electors. Ballot eligibility and a majority vote by the Electors in the Electoral College does not confer eligibility upon a sitting President. When the ballots are read by the VP, a member of the House and a member of the Senate may concurrently submit an objection to votes being counted for an ineligible President, but the House and Senate must vote to sustain the objection for the ineligible President not to receive the votes.
The De Facto Officer Doctrine indemnifies the U.S. Federal Government from the actions of a usurper after the usurper leaves office. While the usurper is in office, an individual who suffered a particularized harm by a law, regulation, or appointment by the usurper may object and seek a waiver in Federal Court. An individual cannot seek to have a sitting President ordered to be removed or his laws declared null and void.
I posted that one should sue the govt...another posted here stated it could not happen...then I posted the tort law - exactly what this article is saying...
goodnesswins to BCW
“I dont believe you can sue the government”
BCW to goodnesswins
“well - people have law suits against Kathleen Sebelius...so perhaps the people who are running the show or agency - that represents the govt entitiy.
yes - difficult - it can happen...targeting specific agencies...”
Unless one of the more conservative SCOTUS kicks the bucket, the “Court” is not yet packed. Nobama IS trying to pack the DC Circuit, but that will not currently stop such nobamacare suits.
Watch for suits on origination, that’s the poison pill Roberts planted.
Good luck with that.
Confusing! What about those who's insurance has been cancelled and have indeed “suffered” due to having no ability to pay for their healing or medications? I suppose if you die you no longer have “standing”
The old saying goes "Anybody can sue anybody for anything, but can you win?"
The elements of proof that would be required here for any cause of action that I can imagine are too daunting to be achieved in the real world.
“Standing” can get you into court, but once there you have to have something relevant to say - you need to be able to allege a legal cause of action, then prove it with a preponderance of evidence. Then prove damages.
Good luck with that.
I already have standing.
It’s called “no”.
I am repulsed by frivolous lawsuits but I would like to see Obamacare, etc. sued to death, in every which way.
Chief Justice John Roberts will fix it; not to worry.
When will people is this country realize these will be no relief from tyranny via the courts populated by......the same tyrants?
Not certain regarding effective dates of insurance cancellations per nobamacare, but the ACA become law on 1 Jan. 2014 and under the law that is when an affected person gains standing.
I don’t think we would be wise to do away with the legal concept of standing, to do so would turn into quite a court mess.
The Bill of Rights protects the individual from the Will of the Majority.
“The elements of proof that would be required here for any cause of action that I can imagine are too daunting to be achieved in the real world.”
In a civil suit, the allegations made are assumed to be true until there is a ruling by the Judge the allegations do not have merit.
1. Plaintiff makes allegations against defendant.
2. Plaintiff asserts they have suffered a direct an particularized harm due to the actions of the defendant and there is a remedy the Court can order to right the wrong.
3. If Defendant denies the allegations and cannot persuade the Court to dismiss the case on standing or the inability of the Court to order a remedy to make the Plaintiff whole, discovery begins.
4. In discovery, the plaintiff obtains proof of the allegations made in the complaint from the defendant and relevant witnesses.
5. It is up to the Defendant to put forth an affirmative defense or the Court will have no choice to but to find the allegations have merit.
6. The Court weighs the evidence and testimony by the Plaintiff and Defendant and decides by a preponderance of the evidence if the allegations made in the complaint have merit.
Mocking and belittling anyone to intimidate a potential litigant is a sign the administration is scared.
I would think this could be the biggest class action ever.
And who enforces the Bill of Rights? The President? The courts? The congress?
"If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied - MBV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic."
Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Not too many moons from now, at the longest, we, in the United States of America will have to make that same choice the Jews of Germany made.
It will be pushed back until Obama is out of office.
I am afraid odds are you are correct.
I think that is one reason the junta is so actively pursuing any sort of organized group of political dissent (”extremest” conservatives). In groups of people there is a cohesiveness that coordinates and solidifies organization and resistance. Patriots are more willing to die together, to put it bluntly.
Break up the groups and it is much easier to crush resistance.
Can’t wait for the first wrongful death suits for patients who die because they have lost their medical coverage.
And those who thought they signed up for coverage but the applications were never processed.
I am correct, My FRiend. Not because I am so brilliant, but because of the nature of evil. Evil never stops advancing on its own accord. Evil only stops advancing when it is stopped by the sacrifices and blood of decent individuals. Throughout history, the forces of good have rallied to stop the advance of evil when all seemed lost. I hope that this will be the case of the United States. I am optimistic that there will be enough honorable individuals willing to sacrifice their lives if necessary to preserve the principles this Country was founded on. Time will tell. I do know that evil will not stop on its own accord. It must be stopped with force.
A lesson of history that unfortunately few people have learned.
I do agree, what we are dealing with here is not honest difference of opinion, it is evil.
Not going to happen.
I have no problem with anyone who can afford to do so filing suit, I merely question the ability of any plaintiff to prevail against legislation that has already been ruled constitutional.
Unless there can be a factual showing, after discovery, that there was intentional illegality, wrongdoing like fraud, or gross negligence on the part of a government official that directly affected the plaintiff, they will go exactly nowhere, regardless of procedural issues.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that presidents may never be sued in office or after departing office for official acts undertaken as president. In that case, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the court based its reasoning in part on the argument that it would be too burdensome to a president to have to defend himself against civil lawsuits while trying to serve effectively as president.
As of this time, there has been no judicial ruling of a violation of law. “Suggestions” of law violations aren’t enough, there would need to be a definitive ruling.
If there was to be a court ruling or a congressional finding of ineligibility, then all bets would be off, but there has been no such judicial or congressional finding.