- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed | Reuters(Reuters) - U.S. states can proceed with their lawsuit seeking to overturn President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare reform law, a Florida judge ruled on Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson had already indicated at a hearing last month that he could not uphold parts of a motion by the Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuit, led by Florida and 19 other states.
"In this order, I have not attempted to determine whether the line between constitutional and extra-constitutional government has been crossed," Vinson, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, wrote in his ruling.
Opponents of Obama's overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system have said it violates the Constitution by imposing, for example, unlawful taxes and requiring citizens to obtain coverage, among other issues.
"I am only saying that ... the plaintiffs have at least stated a plausible claim that the line has been crossed," Vinson said.
Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed | Reuters
I was amazed to see this not posted. Big news here.
I posted it in the healthcare thread a little while ago, actually.
The health care issue is turning me into an anti-federalist. Weird.
Actually, it is instilling anti-federalist sentiments. Anti-federalism is too impractical to be a viewpoint I would espouse, regardless of how I felt.
There are places where the Federal Government is best positioned to take care of things, and places it is not. It's called being practical friend, to admit that sometimes... the Feds need to stay the hell out and sometimes they need to step up.
Smells like judicial activism to me.
Because our elected officials do something our reactionary elements don't like, and what do they do? They don't try and win hearts and minds to change the law, no! They decide to use the courts to subvert democracy.Why? The case, so far, does have some validity to it.
Because our elected officials do something our reactionary elements don't like, and what do they do? They don't try and win hearts and minds to change the law, no! They decide to use the courts to subvert democracy.
While the majority of the US population does want health care reform the majority of the US population also did not want Obamacare. So sorry but I see nothing here that indicates that they are trying to "subvert democracy".
Doesn't change the fact that they'd rather sue than change what they don't like through the ballot.While the majority of the US population does want health care reform the majority of the US population also did not want Obamacare. So sorry but I see nothing here that indicates that they are trying to "subvert democracy".
Because our elected officials do something our reactionary elements don't like, and what do they do? They don't try and win hearts and minds to change the law, no! They decide to use the courts to subvert democracy.
Didn't you come out recently? I wonder if you felt the same way about Proposition 8 in CA.. Ya know, using the courts to "subvert democracy"?
Just curious..
Tim-
It still gets to the point that "judicial activism" is little more than, "They decided in a way I didn't like."
If conservatives can do it with healthcare, why can't gays? That's all this is: A bit scoop of right-wing hypocrisy.Didn't you come out recently? I wonder if you felt the same way about Proposition 8 in CA.. Ya know, using the courts to "subvert democracy"?
Just curious..
Tim-
Doesn't change the fact that they'd rather sue than change what they don't like through the ballot.
“The problem was expanding coverage is about all we did.”
It’s “about all we did,” because Bredesen thinks that expanded entitlement saddles an already burdened federal government drowning in red ink with additional – and expensive – obligations.
“Government loves complexity, rules and red tape, but we may have outdone ourselves this time,” Bredesen writes. “Reform offered a chance to clean up the baroque system we have created over the years, reduce bureaucracy, lower administrative cost and give clarity and focus to a major part of where we spend our taxpayers’ money.
“Instead, we created more complexity, more regulations and the need for more bureaucracy.”
Yes lets go back to the old ways of health care, it was much better back then. Seriously, shouldn't we at the very least see how this works out before calling for it to be overturned.
Doesn't change the fact that they'd rather sue than change what they don't like through the ballot.
The health care issue is turning me into an anti-federalist. Weird.
Actually, it is instilling anti-federalist sentiments. Anti-federalism is too impractical to be a viewpoint I would espouse, regardless of how I felt.
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?