Posted on 01/12/2015 12:52:07 PM PST by PROCON
I’m thinking the opposite. I think the case that they do have before them is a loser for Obama....and therefore, this new case is moot for the time being.
Define “true” and “valid” in this context.
The group of doctors did not, themselves, suffer damage from the passage of the bill, which at the time the suit was brought did not affect them. The perceived or forecast effects did not harm them. It claimed that, if passed, as passed, the bill would have this and that affect which the docs group characterized as “harmful”. Their position was one of theoretical advocacy.
That means they themselves did not suffer those ill results. That means they do not/did not have standing in the legal sense.
What doctors did not suffer damage from the passage of this bill?
The ones that brought the suit. That’s why they have no standing.
How are they not harmed?
It is most likely that all physicians are harmed by this legislation. It does not have to be that they end up unemployed.
It doesn’t work the way you think it should. It works the way it works.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing
It is astronomically difficult for any plaintiff to achieve standing against the government, who, it is assumed by the court, has the magnanimous wisdom to pass laws that are universally beneficial. That is the way it is.
Why wouldn’t any doctor have a personal stake in being damaged by the PPACA?
The article I linked explains exactly why. It can’t be on a theoretical “we think this will happen” basis. It has to be “this already happened” basis.
Seems like this is based on the recent reinterpretation of standing. That in and of itself might be unconstitutional.
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.