And perhaps making your question even more salient?
The ability for hatred to be disseminated digitally and immediately.
It’s not just being fomented in rural backyards and dank urban watering holes anymore.
jw1
2 Likes
Thus sprach Uggswell!
2 Likes
After reading the informed comments here I’d wager this standing issue will not move the Bush v. Gore Court.
Fair question for any sitting Congressperson in their next re-election:
“Since we all were made aware of the ambiguous sentence in the bill, why didnt you propose a bill to fix the language, instead of taking health insurance away from millions, throwing the healthcare system in disarray, and increasing the deficit?”
5 Likes
Wonder how much the ‘plaintiffs’ were paid/encouraged by the KochBoys, their representatives or an elected official?
How much has been paid to lawyers on both sides? That’s too much.
How 'bout tossing it for lack of ethics?
2 Likes
SOMEWHERE out there is a potential plaintiff with actual standing in the way that these four were supposed to have. (Oops.) Let’s get this over with. If I’m the Obama administration, they can have Mickey Mouse as their lead plaintiff and I’m not complaining.
If this gets thrown out on a technicality–by which I mean anything other than a decision on the merits of the underlying theory of the case–it’s going to be two or three more years of screeching from the right about how legal trickery and shady Obama shenanigans saved that illegal socialist law (etc. etc. etc.). Whatever’s coming, we’re better off getting it now.
1 Like
Did the Koch’s just find and pay a bunch of old people to complain? That’s all the crew listed sounds like.
2 Likes
Since Boehner and McConnell and the NRA racist Republicans aren’t out to fix the ACA but are out to get the 1st black President every step of the way, Obama should just issue an executive order clarifying that the ACA always intended to subsidize low income citizens regardless of whether their exchange was at the state level or federal!
Obviously the Republicans believe in big government and wasting all kinds of resources just to get Obama regardless of whether it is not in the interest of our nation or the majority of people!
1 Like
I don’t mean to disagree with you, because your basic premise is correct. Having said that, no one loves having insurance, due to the many inherent problems that go along with it, not to mention just paying for it. If we had universal health insurance, it would be far better and cheaper to boot. I am a Medicare recipient, and can attest to the fact that it is a good thing. Why do the Republicans hate us so much, and why don’t they want everyone to have access to affordable and reliable health care?
4 Likes
Plaintiffs have an obligation to mitigate the damage caused by the defendants. If your tree knocks a hole in my roof, I am obligated to cover the hole with a tarp. If I just leave the hole open for 2 months, the damage beyond the original hole is on me, not you.
It’s irrelevant whether VA care is great or terrible or convenient or inconvenient. The case revolves around the tax penalty. If you are eligible for VA benefits, then you can check the box that says “Had insurance” and there is no penalty.
4 Likes
How could this possibly have made it through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court? What on Earth is the matter with the lower court judges,and the government lawyers, that they can’t do as much research as Mother Jones did on the plaintiffs. How could the Supreme Court demean itself by accepting such a flimsy case? This calls into question the entire concept of Rule of Law in the United States.
3 Likes
This isn’t going to be dismissed based on lack of standing, not after SCOTUS took the step of granting cert ahead of an en banc ruling. 4 Justices are very interested in hearing this case.
Always keep in mind that by hearing the Bush v. Gore case, they went directly against the 11th Amendment. If they are willing to totally ignore the Constitution to hear a case, these people will think nothing of ignoring lack of standing.
9 Likes
I find it so unbelievably satisfying that a so-called “think tank” which calls itself The Competitive Enterprise Institute is so unbelievably incompetent that, with what is it, 28 states, opting not to run their own exchange and they couldn’t come up up with a single person who unequivocally has standing. Whether the Supreme Court hears the case or not, the fact the standing of each of the plaintiffs is in question is just mind-boggling. You fucking losers.
ETA: Just to be clear, that final comment is aimed at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, not you, dear reader. Unless of course you happen to work for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in which case Ah, ha,ha,ha,ha,ha ha,ha.
1 Like
“It would be highly improper (and embarrassing) for the Court” now THAT’S funny! SCROTUS is neither proper nor capable of embarrassment. It is a political arm of the GOP.
4 Likes
“There have been serious questions raised about whether
these plaintiffs have any ongoing injury that a decision in their favor
would redress.”
I cannot imagine any scenario in which a potential plaintiff in this case would be injured in such a way that a decision scrapping the ACA would help them.
3 Likes
The government lawyers got nothing to do with it, they are only there for show. A nutless monkey could do their job.
The only people who have suffered a “wrong” are the very wealthy who were hit with a 3% tax surcharge to help pay for the ACA. They are the only ones “suffering”. And right on cue, their Republican servants are fighting like hell to reverse that sin!
1 Like
But I believe the two plaintiff who are veterans reported fairly low income – under $40K, I believe.
Do you know what the sliding scale or cut-off is?
And both of them despise Obama according to the story so I wonder since they are eligible for veteran health care, what their motivation really is
It didn’t. The Supreme Court reached down and grabbed it out of the queue (at the request of the plaintiffs). By rights, this wouldn’t have gotten to the Supreme Court for a year or two yet.
On July 22, 2014, the 4th Circuit Court of appeals ruled for the government in King v. Burwell. On the same day, a three-judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals ruled against the government in Halbig v. Burwell. This created a split in the appellate courts and that would normally make it something that would proceed to the Supreme Court. However, the government petitioned the DC Court of Appeals for an en banc hearing and this petition was granted. The court also vacated the earlier ruling, thereby removing the split. It is obvious that the full court would have overturned the earlier ruling as otherwise the en banc hearing would not have been granted. Normally, the plaintiffs would only be able to appeal to the Supreme Court after the full DC Court of Appeals ruled against them. But the Supreme Court agreed to take the case ahead of the en banc hearing by the full court. This was unusual.
There is a reasonably good write-up of the case at Wikipedia, which is usually pretty good on the facts
8 Likes