Discussion: Another Challenge To Health Care Law Reaching Supreme Court

Discussion for article #242139

1 Like

Try and fail. Try and fail. They never learn…


The western hemisphere headquarters for Sharia Law.


Except the challenge is not “reaching Supreme Court,” at least at this point. An appeal has been filed. That’s it. The article itself explains in detail how supporters of the challenge “hope” the Supreme Court will hear the case.

Can we not get ahead of ourselves or yield to the desire for click-bait just yet?


does the ACA cover chronic nitpicking?


I agree. It’s moronic even compared to the Moops argument in the last challenge the Supremes allowed before them on the ACA. This goofy piece of crapola will never attract certification.


Headline is deeply misleading. Sloppy work, TPM.


“Obamacare is so unconstitutional in so many ways that the court”

has confirmed it constitutionality twice already. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has almost complete freedom in deciding which cases to take. So, good luck with giving the Court

“Obamacare cases far into the future until the law is repealed or amended”

The Justices will just love this behavior, bordering on contempt of court. BTW, repealing or amending a law is done by Congress, not the court. But how could a lawyer possibly know these sledgehammer-like nuances of constitutional division of power.


PLF got with Coors and conjured up the Mountain States Legal Foundation and hired James Watt as its first president. Watt did what he could to destroy the Department of The Interior under Regan. And remember Anne Gorsuch who did such a great job making EPA run backwards under Regan. And google SLAPP just for grins. The memories just keep coming.


…Make that Chri$harian Law. Burqas coming soon. CheapChinese fabric by HobbyLobby.

1 Like

Surely, this time we’ll claim victory! And then we’ll replace it with


Sounds like the argument has so much working against it no one has anything to worry about.


Wow. Isn’t the very definition of insanity to keep repeating the same actions while hoping for a different result? A republican in the 21st century is defined-- not by politics-- but as a psychological disorder.


The Supremes should just stop taking these. These cases are politically motivated, and by taking them – not even upholding them, but taking them – the Supremes create political drama.


The new appeal, filed on behalf of small-business owner Matt Sissel, stems from the Constitution’s Origination Clause, which requires that the House be the first to pass a bill “for raising revenue.”
The foundation said the health overhaul is expected to generate roughly $500 billion in a dozen separate new taxes by 2019, clearly making it a bill to raise revenue.

It might be a bill “to” raise revenue, but the Constitution requires it to be a bill “for” raising revenue for this case to apply.



Pffft, this pales in comparison to all the lawsuits over the Patriot Act…oh, wait.


The headline is not misleading. The headline is blatantly untrue.


I expect that the list of other laws that would be unconstitutional by the same silly reasoning is tremendously long. Any legislation where a conference committee agreed to new language in the bill and the Senate passed the new language first would be unconstitutional by the standard created by Pacific Legal Foundation.

The Supreme Court has a boilerplate response to petitions that ask the Court to say: “Congress, you’ve been doing it wrong…for generations.” It is: “Denied.”

IOW a bill that’s aimed at raising revenue, not one that incidentally gives rise to the flow of revenue.

It could be the sole basis for this challenge is CJ Roberts’ conjoining with the rational 4 on the narrow basis of the ACA being founded on the Congressional power to tax. That’s true as far as the narrow point goes, but the other 4 relied primarily on the Congressional authority over interstate commerce, which, tho correct in Reality World, is heresy in the con-revised version of Federalism.

And even that ignores the comic formalism of the challengers’ point. Taken to the extreme, it means if some senator, even in the deep past, once spoke publicly in favor of even must narrowing the gap wtih the carried interest rate, or increasing the top marginal rate by a tenth of a percent to fund a trade mission in Qatar or repairs to the Hoover Dam, were something to that same effect to be later found in a House appropriations bill, that bill would be ‘unconstitutional’.

When you consider what “result” the Pacific Legal Foundation is hoping for, which is to get paid a lot of money for pushing the case through every possible appeal, you will find that they aren’t expecting a different result each time.

This is a gravy train for them: “Obamacare is so unconstitutional in so many ways….”