Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thats not what was ruled, it was ruled they didnt have jurisdiction to file a case and if you had read the court reply you would have seen in fact the judge said the opposite in some parts of the reply.
"I find lack standing"
"Defendants argument is unconvincing"
And the defendants claim that its a tax is not true because "Specifically Congress chose not to label them a tax"
And he admits to "not resolve contests surrounding the facts"
Let me do a little cherry picking of my own. The ruling also included:
For these reasons, the individual coverage requirement is a valid exercise of federal power under the Commerce Clause, even as applied to the facts of this case.
Accordingly, the employer coverage provision is a lawful exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power.
For the reasons provided below, I hold that Congress acted in accordance with its constitutionally delegated powers under the Commerce Clause when it passed the employer and individual coverage provisions of the Act, and I will dismiss Count One.
In this respect, the Act is plainly constitutional. Count Two will be dismissed.
For reasons substantially similar to those discussed above, the health care sharing ministries exemption is a constitutionally permissible accommodation of religion under Cutter and Lemon. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claims are without merit and will be dismissed.
As such, their free exercise claim is not plausible under Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-51.
Because Plaintiffs’ RFRA claim, like their free exercise claim, fails to allege more than a “mere possibility” of harm, it is insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge will be dismissed.
Let me do a little cherry picking of my own. The ruling also included:
For these reasons, the individual coverage requirement is a valid exercise of federal power under the Commerce Clause, even as applied to the facts of this case.
Accordingly, the employer coverage provision is a lawful exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power.
For the reasons provided below, I hold that Congress acted in accordance with its constitutionally delegated powers under the Commerce Clause when it passed the employer and individual coverage provisions of the Act, and I will dismiss Count One.
In this respect, the Act is plainly constitutional. Count Two will be dismissed.
For reasons substantially similar to those discussed above, the health care sharing ministries exemption is a constitutionally permissible accommodation of religion under Cutter and Lemon. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claims are without merit and will be dismissed.
As such, their free exercise claim is not plausible under Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-51.
Because Plaintiffs’ RFRA claim, like their free exercise claim, fails to allege more than a “mere possibility” of harm, it is insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge will be dismissed.
And so on, and so on.
The part you dont seem to understand is that it doesnt matter what parts of his reply support the bill, its the ones that dont which matter. You only need ONE negative to throw the whole darn thing out. While the plaintiffs argument failed on some merits, it did not fail on others, its those that didnt fail which is relevant..
Its like someone drinking.. It doesnt matter how many drinks they've had all night, the only one that matters if they are pulled over is the one that put them over the legal limit.. Or similar to stealing, it doesnt matter what the items you stole costs, it only matters if it passed the legal limits to be a felony, or a misdemeanor.
Cherry picking the results of a court document which supports the law isnt important because the law is the law.. its the challenges which ARE SUCCESSFUL which will determine if it gets thrown out or not.. They could have 1,000,000 reasons in a lawsuit to deem it not constitutional, and if 999,999 of them held by the courts, that 1 is still what is important because its that 1 which threw the law out on its a$$..
Anyone who has had experiences with the law would know this to be true. I sued a company several years ago under 45 different counts, it only took 1 of them to bankrupt the company into non existence.. The results of the other 44 didnt change the fact that they went belly up because they couldnt pay the $500K judgement. The same will be true with this bill.. Just ONE successful argument ANYWHERE throws this thing out, so its the successful arguments which need looked at..
Its the liberals filing responses to the lawsuits tying up the court system with a law they knew up front would be challenged...
Just so I understand ...
We have how many lawsuits filed against the health care reform law? But that's OK - people are free to file lawsuits, right? And I suspect virtually all of these lawsuits have been filed by those on the right side of the political spectrum - would that be fair to say?
But the lawsuits that are "tying up the court system" are those filed by people on the left side of the political spectrum.
It's an interesting way of looking at things. Conservative lawsuits - A-OK ; liberal lawsuits - frivolous waste of time. Got it.
PG, I'd put you on my ignore list if you weren't so damned entertaining.
Anyway, I think I have discovered the problem with our discussions, reading for comprehension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
"Defendants argument is unconvincing"
And the defendants claim that its a tax is not true because "Specifically Congress chose not to label them a tax"
The defendant's argument that wasn't convincing was regarding the Anti Injunction Act which would preclude a court from enjoining the payment of a tax. The import of that statement is that the defendant attempted to rely on the Act to postpone any judicial review until after the "tax" had actually been collected. Nothing more and nothing less.
Liberal mentality? Are you under the impression that liberals are filing lawsuits against the health care reform law? Liberals like .... Jerry Falwell?
*sigh*... it's the liberal mentality that we should pass unconstitutional legislation for the sake of passing it against the will of the people. They knew full well (I hope) that there would be numerous legal challenges because of the unconstitutionality of the law, but they did not care. They don't care that our court systems will be tied up for YEARS because of this POS legislation. All they care about is that their side won. The stupidity of liberal mentality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
