The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Chris_ on October 07, 2010, 05:47:10 PM
-
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/kayaktn/gavel-judge.jpg)
Oct. 7 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit today denied the Thomas More Law Center’s request for an injunction against the law and said the group failed to prove the statute is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Steeh also rejected a challenge to the provision that imposes a financial penalty for having no insurance.
“The minimum coverage provision, which addresses economic decisions regarding health-care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need, is a reasonable means of effectuating Congress’s goal,†Steeh wrote.
Today’s court ruling is the first to uphold the constitutionality of the law, which Michigan and 20 other states are challenging in separate lawsuits. A U.S. judge in Virginia already has refused to dismiss a claim seeking to overturn the law, and a federal judge in Florida said he is inclined to do the same.
Steeh rejected claims by the U.S. that the Thomas More center didn’t have standing and that the case wasn’t ready for litigation. The government had said the court had no justification for hearing the lawsuit because the insurance requirement won’t take effect until 2014.
Bloomberg (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-07/health-care-law-ruled-constitutional-by-u-s-judge.html)
-
I believe he is a Clinton appointee. :bird:
-
I believe he is a Clinton appointee. :bird:
You are correct. He is.
He must be another red diaper doper baby as well. :censored:
-
Which is why the DOJ and WH are going to steer as many challenges towards liberal appointees as possible.
However, if and when this gets in front of SCOTUS, it needs to have significant portions of it ruled unconstitutional, and IIRC, there is no severability clause in this, is there?
-
Which is why the DOJ and WH are going to steer as many challenges towards liberal appointees as possible.
For sure they will. That's all we need. More and more red diaper doper babies.
-
No matter what, this is going to the Supremes.
-
No matter what, this is going to the Supremes.
It's going to be a bumpy road until then. I was expecting this, but I still don't like it.
-
Which is why the DOJ and WH are going to steer as many challenges towards liberal appointees as possible.
However, if and when this gets in front of SCOTUS, it needs to have significant portions of it ruled unconstitutional, and IIRC, there is no severability clause in this, is there?
Nope. The whole thing is headed for the Garbage Bin.
-
Hopefully it never makes it in front of the SCOTUS and is repealed.
-
I'll have to read this judgment before I can figure out what reality this moron is livin' in! How the hell this is legal under the Commerce Clause is ****in' beyond me! Levin has picked this thing apart 7 ways to Sunday, and he's a frikkin' Constitutional Lawyer fier cripe's sake! Where the hell did this jerk get his degree, Toys 'R Us?
It may be legal on the judge's home planet of Uranus, but it sure as hell isn't in our Constitution!
-
“The minimum coverage provision, which addresses economic decisions regarding health-care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need,
So what's next mandated life insurance?
Hell everyone needs a home why not mandate that everyone either has to pay rent, or a mortgage, or pay fines?
that would solve the homeless problem right?
:banghead:
I used to be inspired when anyone played the clip of Reagan saying, "If we lose freedom here, there is no where to go. this is the last stand on earth". Now that quote terrifies me.
-
I'll have to read this judgment before I can figure out what reality this moron is livin' in! How the hell this is legal under the Commerce Clause is ****in' beyond me! Levin has picked this thing apart 7 ways to Sunday, and he's a frikkin' Constitutional Lawyer fier cripe's sake! Where the hell did this jerk get his degree, Toys 'R Us?
It may be legal on the judge's home planet of Uranus, but it sure as hell isn't in our Constitution!
The dude was appointed by a Democrat. I am not surprised at this ruling.
-
The dude was appointed by a Democrat. I am not surprised at this ruling.
Oh, I expected no less! Hopefully other states will have better luck!
-
Hopefully it never makes it in front of the SCOTUS and is repealed.
bingo. the precarious balance of power in the SCOTUS makes me less than confidant that they would make the proper decision.
repeal the damn thing. the republican wave appears to be turning into a tsunami.
-
I will be pleasantly surprised if it is repealed. But I fear that it will not be. :censored:
-
I will be pleasantly surprised if it is repealed. But I fear that it will not be. :censored:
Agreed. Even with a significant shift in power in Congress, I don't think it will be enough to repeal this fiasco.