The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Chris_ on May 12, 2010, 01:03:07 PM
-
Defending the law, the Justice Department said Congress acted to address a national problem, the minimum coverage provisions were constitutional and the lawsuit was premature because no one had been harmed by the law.
"They bring this suit four years before the provision they challenge takes effect, demonstrate no current injury, and merely speculate whether the law will harm them once it is in force," the Justice Department told the court.
Several states have also filed lawsuits in Florida and Virginia challenging the law.
A lawyer for the Thomas More Law Center said he was not concerned by the issues raised by the administration. "There were no surprises and we're prepared to respond to every argument they raise," said Robert Muise, senior trial counsel.
The Justice Department said that Congress did not exceed its authority. It said those who did not want to buy insurance may qualify for an exemption from any penalty and that U.S. law prohibits lawsuits aimed at blocking the collection of taxes.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64B4Q720100512
AP link: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gBZEHpc6Pi64FEn9T4wWJefbEyZgD9FLDP2G4
-
The Justice Department said that Congress did not exceed its authority. It said those who did not want to buy insurance may qualify for an exemption from any penalty and that U.S. law prohibits lawsuits aimed at blocking the collection of taxes.
So which is it Mr. Obama?
A penalty or a tax?
-
So which is it Mr. Obama?
A penalty or a tax?
Or forced purchase from a third party? There is indeed a bit of a hole in the Obamite logic on that one.
-
Hole in Obamite logic? Indeed. But is there ANY Obamite logic WITHOUT some gaping hole in the logic?
-
Hole in Obamite logic? Indeed. But is there ANY Obamite logic WITHOUT some gaping hole in the logic?
To borrow a phrase from the software makers of the world, that's a 'Feature,' not a 'Defect.'
:-)
-
Hole in Obamite logic? Indeed. But is there ANY Obamite logic WITHOUT some gaping hole in the logic?
Fixed. :-)
-
Nitwits like Holder and leftist attorneys litigating these suits should be a slam dunk for our side.
-
To borrow a phrase from the software makers of the world, that's a 'Feature,' not a 'Defect.'
:-)
You mean, like, wheels for your car are a nice extra feature?
-
You mean, like, wheels for your car are a nice extra feature?
Well, more like the BSOD is an "Automatic randomized system reset utility."
:whatever:
-
because no one had been harmed by the law Prove that! It harms me everyday I think about it!
-
To borrow a phrase from the software makers of the world, that's a 'Feature,' not a 'Defect.'
:-)
Boy that HC bill sure has a lot of "Undocumented Features". :banghead:
-
because no one had been harmed by the law Prove that! It harms me everyday I think about it!
From what I've found in USSC patent law rulings, the prerequesite of "actual harm" is wholly dependent on the relevant statute's own phrasing and requirements--actual harm is not a judicial requirement at all times. In any case, this line of defense would require plaintiff to wait until the harm actually occurred, even though a reasonable person can easily anticipate the harm to come--the penalty to be imposed. This is certain harm--as plaintiff defines harm--at a future date, not harm that is questionable even as to its existence. The harm, as plaintiff defines harm, will occur. Also, the Justice Department states that "Congress acted to address a national problem"--but that argument is obviated if they insist that no "actual harm" has been incurred by plaintiff, ie, if there's a "problem," then how can said problem have been addressed if a provision vital to the law's integrity is not in effect? Once again, no logic.
Finally, plaintiff can argue that the state in which it is headquartered is now prevented from addressing healthcare issues in its own fashion, because the state legislature cannot possibly consider state-level healthcare legislation without taking into account the extant provisions of the new federal law. That's harm.
I nearly think Stevens retired to avoid having to decide one way or the other on the mandate. He may have been torn between what he knows to be sound judicial philosophy and his liberal leanings. I've read some of his rulings related to the commerce clause and he was not a slam dunk to uphold, believe it or not. When I discovered this in his opinions, this actually gave me some hope that we didn't have to depend solely on whether or not Kennedy got his coffee the day they argue this before the USSC. Of course Kagan is a slam dunk to uphold this evil.
Speaking of Kagan, there are many good reasons for the Republicans to go to war against her: 1) the base still wants payback for Bork and Thomas, and the hell they put Alito through, 2) they can easily expose her ultraliberal Obamaclone philosophy before the nation, and right now the nation is in a mood to back the Republicans if they just give them a good reason, and 3) most importantly, a long, protracted, brusing fight over a USSC nomination will waste time that Obama, Pelosi, and the whole coterie of Dem traitors need to push through their fascist agenda before November. The more time wasted in the Senate, the better. Kagan will still probably get in, really almost assuredly, but there's no reason to make this esy for the Dems and every reason to run out as much of the Senate clock as possible before November.
-
From what I've found in USSC patent law rulings, the prerequesite of "actual harm" is wholly dependent on the relevant statute's own phrasing and requirements--actual harm is not a judicial requirement at all times. In any case, this line of defense would require plaintiff to wait until the harm actually occurred, even though a reasonable person can easily anticipate the harm to come--the penalty to be imposed. This is certain harm--as plaintiff defines harm--at a future date, not harm that is questionable even as to its existence. The harm, as plaintiff defines harm, will occur. Also, the Justice Department states that "Congress acted to address a national problem"--but that argument is obviated if they insist that no "actual harm" has been incurred by plaintiff, ie, if there's a "problem," then how can said problem have been addressed if a provision vital to the law's integrity is not in effect? Once again, no logic.
Finally, plaintiff can argue that the state in which it is headquartered is now prevented from addressing healthcare issues in its own fashion, because the state legislature cannot possibly consider state-level healthcare legislation without taking into account the extant provisions of the new federal law. That's harm.
I nearly think Stevens retired to avoid having to decide one way or the other on the mandate. He may have been torn between what he knows to be sound judicial philosophy and his liberal leanings. I've read some of his rulings related to the commerce clause and he was not a slam dunk to uphold, believe it or not. When I discovered this in his opinions, this actually gave me some hope that we didn't have to depend solely on whether or not Kennedy got his coffee the day they argue this before the USSC. Of course Kagan is a slam dunk to uphold this evil.
Speaking of Kagan, there are many good reasons for the Republicans to go to war against her: 1) the base still wants payback for Bork and Thomas, and the hell they put Alito through, 2) they can easily expose her ultraliberal Obamaclone philosophy before the nation, and right now the nation is in a mood to back the Republicans if they just give them a good reason, and 3) most importantly, a long, protracted, brusing fight over a USSC nomination will waste time that Obama, Pelosi, and the whole coterie of Dem traitors need to push through their fascist agenda before November. The more time wasted in the Senate, the better. Kagan will still probably get in, really almost assuredly, but there's no reason to make this esy for the Dems and every reason to run out as much of the Senate clock as possible before November.
Thanks for the answer of harm...I agree no reason to make it easy for Kagan. She is a nightmare to say the least. Always look in the other direction with this bunch.
-
That 3.8% tax on home sales is going to bite, and exactly who does this benefit again? HCR doesn't give anything to anyone, merely makes people buy their own.
-
That 3.8% tax on home sales is going to bite, and exactly who does this benefit again? HCR doesn't give anything to anyone, merely makes people buy their own.
I think that 0Bama's base, those who don't work, will be the only ones to get anything out of this.
-
Obamites are using the EXACT SAME arguments that were used to gert Social Security thru..Remember, tho, back then not everyone was SS REQUIRED! Farm workers, for instance, were not includsd. Nor RR workers. The decision was wrong then, wrong now, But the Court was packed and fearful of the FDR 15 Justice Supreme Court plan, so they rolled over for FDR. hOPEFULLY, the fact that Mr. Obama is no where hear the intelect that FDR was and FDR was not a malignent narcissist may give the Justices pause. I hope.
-
Thanks for the answer of harm...I agree no reason to make it easy for Kagan. She is a nightmare to say the least. Always look in the other direction with this bunch.
Well that's my lay opinion, cavegal; I don't claim to be an expert (ie, a jurist of some sort), and I'm not one. These are my best conclusions on the few issues stated above--but from what I've read, a certainty of harm to come is as much harm as harm in the present, and also the patent cases I've read defer to the statute to define harm, not to a judicial test; plaintiffs have a right to judicial redress to forestall the harm and not just sit still for it (assuming they can convince the court that it is harm). The same legal theory, I guess, would lie behind the right of a court to issue a restraining order. Plus there's no question that Obama's people are caught in a logical conundrum on this: they can't say that Congress was addressing a real problem, thus making the law necessary right now, but then claim the law addressing the problem causes no harm because it's not in effect right now.