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.
/8^)
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...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3097915/posts
goodnesswins to BCW
“I don’t 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...”
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/suing-government-negligence-FTCA-29705.html
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.
Basically;
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.
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.