Fla. Judge Rules New Health Care Law Can Be Challenged in Court

[cavegal]

U.S. states can proceed with their lawsuit seeking to overturn President Barack Obama's landmark reform law, a Florida judge ruled on Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson had already indicated at a hearing last month that he would reject parts of a motion by the Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuit, led by Florida and 19 other states.

Reuters


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/14/federal-judge-allows-multi-state-suit-health-care-law-proceed/

A Florida federal judge rejected a request on Thursday by the U.S. Department of Justice to dismiss in its entirety a lawsuit challenging the federal g

edit to add link

[Wretched Excess]

this is a big ruling. been waiting for this one all day.

[cavegal]

You notice they would not report what the judge said could NOT go forward, what an incredible waste of tax payer money and valuable time. He gutted 75% of the lawsuit.

That is the first comment at end of article. This does not sound good.

[Attero Dominatus]

That is the first comment at end of article. This does not sound good.

If something seems too good to be true, then it usually is (I am assuming that commenter is right about a full 75% of the suit being knocked down; I hope we get to know the details).

[Chris_]

Here's the ruling: WSJ

The plaintiffs advance six causes of action in their amended complaint, and they seek declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to each. They contend that the Act violates the Constitution in the following ways:

(1) the individual mandate and concomitant penalty exceed Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause and violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (Count I);

(2) the individual mandate and penalty violate substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment (Count II);

(3) “alternatively,” if the penalty imposed for failing to comply with the individual mandate is found to be a tax, it is an unconstitutional unapportioned capitation or direct tax in violation of U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 4, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (Count III);

(4) the Act coerces and commandeers the states with respect to Medicaid by altering and expanding the program in violation of Article I and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (Count IV);

(5) it coerces and commandeers with respect to the health benefit exchanges in violation of Article I and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (Count V); and

(6) the employer mandate interferes with the states’ sovereignty as large employers and in the performance of government functions in violation of Article I and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments

Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Counts Two, Five, and Six, and those counts are hereby DISMISSED.  The motion is DENIED with respect to Counts One and Four. Count Three is also DISMISSED, as moot. The case will continue as to Counts One and Four pursuant to the scheduling order previously entered.

[cavegal]

Here's the ruling: WSJ

Thank you for posting that, now can you tell me the jest of it? I read it, I went to a California School System.

[Attero Dominatus]

Thank you for posting that, now can you tell me the jest of it? I read it, I went to a California School System.

It looks to me like only 1 and 4 will move forward.

[cavegal]

It looks to me like only 1 and 4 will move forward.

and number 3

[Chris_]

and number 3

Count Three is also DISMISSED, as moot.

[true_blood]

GOOD! Hellcare should be challenged and repealed.