repeter
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 3,445
- Reaction score
- 682
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Ditto. They'll call it a political question and won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.I'd be surprised to see the SC grant cert. Most lower courts will probably punt on it as well.
I've recently heard that 12 or so states are planning to file lawsuits against the government, regarding the mandate that people must have health care. This brings up the question of whether this bill will be found constitutional or not.
I personally believe this is a waste of time, and if it eventually appeals to the Supreme Court, it'll end there, with it being found constitutional.
Thoughts?
I wonder if these states will have any standing in challenging the law.
For those who are legitimately interested in the legal issues behind this, check out this great debate between some pretty smart people:
PENNumbra—University of Pennsylvania Law Review
I wonder if these states will have any standing in challenging the law.
What makes you think they wouldn't?
I'd be surprised to see the SC grant cert. Most lower courts will probably punt on it as well.
For those of us(well, at least me) who are ignorant of court speak, can you rephrase that a bit?
The Supreme Court can decide whether to take a case or not. That's called a writ of certiorari (granting "cert"). Sometimes they just ignore the really controversial ones.
For those of us(well, at least me) who are ignorant of court speak, can you rephrase that a bit?
Granting a writ of certiorari means merely that at least four of the Justices have determined that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant review by the Court.
I think states lack standing in challenging the constitutionality of the legislation because they are not themselves directly impacted by its provisions.
Of course those states that are attempting to nullify the federal law with their own legislation will experience a sudden, violent collision with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and that will be the end of that.
So, all that's left is individuals who don't want to buy insurance: basically the free loaders. I guess I don't feel much sympathy for them.
If it were to be found unconstitutional (and I can't imagine how) it would mean that just about every other similar bill would be found so as well, throwing our entire system of government into upheaval.
I still haven't heard a real argument as to why this bill, among all, is unconstitutional. Many opponents just seem to think that since they don't like it, it must be.
For those of us(well, at least me) who are ignorant of court speak, can you rephrase that a bit?
Ooh, whipping out the FRCP! Nice ...Let me know when the DoJ files for Rule 11 sanctions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?