Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is not exactly deceiving the people. This is doing harm to at least our diplomacy, if not more.
It is a little complicated. Think of the Courts at the different levels like coworkers. You might ask a coworker at your same level for advice and even listen to them sometimes, but you only really "have" to listen to your boss.
And the same case can be heard many times using many different theories, you just have to find somebody different to bring it. If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Just ask the birthers.
Could be the situation, maybe it's not, I have no idea. But it'll get sorted out at some level of appeal.
It is a little complicated. Think of the Courts at the different levels like coworkers. You might ask a coworker at your same level for advice and even listen to them sometimes, but you only really "have" to listen to your boss.
And the same case can be heard many times using many different theories, you just have to find somebody different to bring it. If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Just ask the birthers.
Could be the situation, maybe it's not, I have no idea. But it'll get sorted out at some level of appeal.
OK, thanks. So there are compelling reasons to fast track a judgement that will stand, likely a SC ruling or a SC nod on a lower court's ruling.
Considering the appeal process how long will it take to get this settled?
Update II: Still waiting for more data from the opinion, but several commenters have mentioned the lack of a severability clause in ObamaCare to argue that this decision would invalidate the entire bill. Not so fast, wrote David Catron at American Spectator last week:
This is probably why the White House has made so much of recent rulings by U.S. District Judges George Steeh and Norman Moon, Clinton appointees who dismissed relatively inconsequential anti-PPACA lawsuits. The administration knows, of course, that the Virginia case presents a far more serious threat than either of these cases. It has already survived a motion to dismiss and it was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the famous rocket docket from which important cases are expeditiously launched to the U.S. Court of Appeals and beyond. As Judge Hudson put it during the October hearing, [T]his is only one brief stop on the way to the United States Supreme Court. Nonetheless, if he rules in favor of Virginia, the administration will no doubt claim it is ahead two-to-one.
The jumpiness of the White House notwithstanding, it is not a given that Judge Hudson will strike down the entire law. He has shown skepticism about the mandate, but that issue is relatively straightforward compared to the severability question. On the mandate, he can follow the example of Judges Steeh and Moon, who held that the decision notto engage in economic activity somehow constitutes commerce as the word is used in the Constitution, or he can rule that such reasoning does too much violence to the intent of the founders. On severability, Hudsons choices are more numerous and the legal precedents are less auspicious. In fact, the Supreme Court recently invalidated an important part of the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting law, which contains no severability clause, while leaving the rest of its provisions in place.
Its also a given that the Supreme Court will wind up deciding this, so any talk of severability at this point is academic.
Update V: Hudson hits the nail on the head with this:
Hudson rejected the governments argument that it has the power under the Constitution to require individuals to buy health insurance, a provision that was set to take effect in 2014.
Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing or nutritional decisions, Hudson wrote. This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by previous legal cases around the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
Hudson perhaps not inadvertently just described the progressive agenda in a single sentence, and why the Constitution forbids it.
there is some of that. but its the right that seems to pick and choose from the constitution.
and i wonder what is a more fundamental right... control over our bodies and the ability to not be discriminated against by marriage laws
or having to wear a seat belt or pay for health insurance?
In laymen terms.
The Bill was a pile of shit to begin with and after the unconstitutional part is removed it will become a larger pile of crapola. Congress needs to rescind it and start over, without the back room deals and remembering that the objective is not power but lowering costs.
It is a little complicated. Think of the Courts at the different levels like coworkers. You might ask a coworker at your same level for advice and even listen to them sometimes, but you only really "have" to listen to your boss.
And the same case can be heard many times using many different theories, you just have to find somebody different to bring it. If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Just ask the birthers.
Could be the situation, maybe it's not, I have no idea. But it'll get sorted out at some level of appeal.
OK, thanks. So there are compelling reasons to fast track a judgement that will stand, likely a SC ruling or a SC nod on a lower court's ruling.
Considering the appeal process how long will it take to get this settled?
I'm not sure he really cares whether it will stand, considering all of his references to it being an issue of first impression. He knows for a fact his is not the last word.
As to how long it will take to settle, it's anybody's guess. The next step will be the appeal to the 4th Circuit, that's automatically granted. Under the procedural rules it will take a few months for the briefs to be filed, then the court will hear motions and accept briefs from friends of the court. Then they have to hear oral arguments, in this appeal before that 3-judge panel, then they deliberate and write the opinion. A lot depends on how full their docket is to schedule motions and arguments as well as release the opinion. Could be a year, could be more, could be less. If the issues and arguments in the two VA cases are similar enough, the Court may combine them into one case and issue one joint opinion to save time.
MI isn't in the same Circuit, so that case will have to go through the process in the 6th Circuit. With maybe the same or maybe a different result, and probably on a different time table because of the different docket.
Then the loser in each case has to appeal to their respective Circuit for an "en banc" hearing before the entire Court rather than just a panel. If the Circuits want to fast track it to SCOTUS, they might deny it. If not, the case gets reheard and another opinion released.
Then and only then, after all options have been exhausted, can the losers at the Circuit level petition SCOTUS to hear the case. And that's just the petition for cert, it takes time to file supporting info, have the petition heard in conference, then submit briefs and go through that whole process all over again. So it's a process that can take quite a bit of time, even if it's "fast tracked". Worst case, 3 years or more.
During the postwar years, the Right was comprised largely of Burkean consensus builders. They did not believe in top-down government-imposed revolutionary change, ala French Revolution. They believed in supporting the will of the people, and if the people wanted the New Deal or progressive taxation or safety nets, than so be it -- they would accommodate consensus (as they did during the liberal postwar era when Eisenhower and Nixon supported the New Deal). They old Right didn't have a strategy for populating the judiciary with ideologues committed to change because they didn't see themselves as change agents -- they saw themselves as protecting the social fabric. The old Right allowed society to change organically, according to it's own bottom-up rhythm. This is what made them Burkean consensus builders rather than top-down revolutionaries.
Starting with Reagan, however, the Right coalesced around radical change. They wanted to give a New Deal not to lower classes, but to the upper class. Burkean Conservatism evolved into Movement Conservatism. Their goal was to reduce government to a size small enough to choke it in a bath tub. If this meant putting it in terrible debt (in order to starve the beast and chose Social Security/Medicare), than so be it.
And so . . the right created a game plan for overhauling government, the judiciary, and mass media. Their goal was to change the way government works, and the way people think about government. Their goal was radical change. They funneled money into think tanks and mass media. Their strategy was to fill the regulatory, judicial, and media structures with hard-line conservatives.
They were successful. Now, when they don't like legislation, they have an army of talking heads who endlessly repeat a particular narrative. They place the well-meaning voter in a fog of mushroom clouds. WMD, gay agenda, illegals, liberals, terrorists, sin, drugs, birth certificate, baby killers, Constitution! Constitution! Constitution!, Osama! Saddam! Osama!, and death panel! death panel! death panel! They say it over and over, as the white middle aged man clutches his steering wheel in rage. Point is: the right, after 30 years of concentrated investment into media, has direct access to American opinion, and they have the most powerful funding advantage known to man: business.
They also have the judiciary, from the local level to the Supreme court. They also have the regulatory body, which is populated by business insiders.
What happens when the Democrats pass a law which tries to help the non-wealthy. The right calls it unconstitutional. They have the power to overturn ANYTHING, from health care to presidential elections.
People, if you think Bush V Gore or the Supreme Courts eventual repeal of Health Care represents dangerous, anti-Democratic activism, you ain't seen nothing yet. America is in the middle of a protracted Coup d'etat that started in 1980. The goal is to replace the great postwar middle class with a new uber-wealthy class. America is becoming like the 3rd world with concentrated pools of insane wealth surrounded by exploding poverty. Eventually, the uber-wealthy will all live in hyper-secure self-sufficient "compounds" which have their own food/security/education/health care/entertainment = everything. On the other side of the compound-wall there will exist a dying public sphere with decaying cities, filth, crime, and total poverty. The federal government will be irrelevant, replaced by private enclaves.
Post middle class America is going to look much different. Movement Conservatism is replacing a great nation with a neoliberal dystopia. They can get rid of any law they don't like. Anything Washington does for the non-wealthy will be killed in the crib. The game is over.
Yes they are, there will be no pool of paying participants to shoulder their premiums.
the exchanges
The states already are resisting the mandate to erect these exchanges and support them without compensation. If it is a futile gesture with low unpredictable participation they will resist much more, being broke and all...
If they wanted to lower costs, this bill wouldn't have been passed because we know it increases costs. [...]
1) Permit interstate shopping for insurance.
During the postwar years, the Right was comprised largely of Burkean consensus builders. They did not believe in top-down government-imposed revolutionary change, ala French Revolution. They believed in supporting the will of the people, and if the people wanted the New Deal or progressive taxation or safety nets, than so be it -- they would accommodate consensus (as they did during the liberal postwar era when Eisenhower and Nixon supported the New Deal). The old Right didn't have a strategy for populating the judiciary with ideologues committed to change because they didn't see themselves as change agents -- they saw themselves as protecting the social fabric. The old Right allowed society to change organically, according to it's own bottom-up rhythm. This is what made them Burkean consensus builders rather than top-down revolutionaries.
Starting with Reagan, however, the Right coalesced around radical change. They wanted to give a New Deal not to lower classes, but to the upper class. Burkean Conservatism evolved into Movement Conservatism. Their goal was to eliminate everything the government was doing for the Middle Class in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy. Their goal was to reduce government to a size small enough to choke it in a bath tub. If this meant putting government in terrible debt (in order to starve the beast and choke Social Security/Medicare), than so be it.
And so . . the right created a game plan for overhauling government, the judiciary, and mass media. Their goal was not only to change the way government worked, but how people thought about government. Their goal was radical change. Starting in the 70s, they funneled money into think tanks, mass media, pro-business lobbying groups on a level unlike anything seen before. Their strategy was to fill the regulatory, judicial, and media structures with hard-line conservatives. Their goal was to create a perfect synergy between business and government, so corporation could fund (staff) government and buy legislation. Their goal was also to pack the courts so they could stop Liberal legislation, should any get past their net.
They were successful. Now, when they don't like legislation, they have an army of talking heads who endlessly repeat a particular narrative. They place the well-meaning voter in a fog of mushroom clouds. WMD, gay agenda, illegals, liberals, terrorists, sin, drugs, birth certificate, baby killers, Constitution! Constitution! Constitution!, Osama! Saddam! Osama!, and death panel! death panel! death panel! They say it over and over, as the white middle aged man clutches his steering wheel in rage. Point is: the right, after 30 years of concentrated investment into media, has direct access to American opinion, and they have the most powerful funding advantage known to man: business.
They also have the judiciary, from the local level to the Supreme court. They also have the regulatory body, which is populated by business insiders.
What happens when the Democrats pass a law which tries to help the non-wealthy. The right calls it unconstitutional. They have the power to overturn ANYTHING, from health care to presidential elections.
People, if you think Bush V Gore or the Supreme Courts eventual repeal of Health Care represents dangerous, anti-Democratic activism, you ain't seen nothing yet. America is in the middle of a protracted Coup d'etat that started in 1980. The goal is to replace the great postwar middle class with a new uber-wealthy class. America is becoming like the 3rd world with concentrated pools of insane wealth surrounded by exploding poverty. Eventually, the uber-wealthy will all live in hyper-secure self-sufficient "compounds" which have their own food/security/education/health care/entertainment = everything. On the other side of the compound-wall there will exist a dying public sphere with decaying cities, filth, crime, and total poverty. The federal government will be irrelevant, replaced by private enclaves.
Post middle class America is going to look much different. Movement Conservatism is replacing a great nation with a neoliberal dystopia. They can get rid of any law they don't like. Anything Washington does for the non-wealthy will be killed in the crib. The game is over.
Information isn't property. Passively receiving it is not an offense. Now if Assange was involved in any way in obtaining it, it's espionage. Tough call to make without more facts than we have publicly available, but IMO we have our signal the Europeans are willing to play ball in handing the guy over and keeping him out of circulation if we can just come up with evidence. He's dangerous to them too.
His general attitude is dangerous to all governments that value secrets over transparency. Their willingness to persecute him says more about them than anything he did.
There are certain secrets any government has to value above transparency, particularly where relations with other governments are concerned.
I'm a big fan of the First, but it's obvious even to me that when we assure another nation that our communications will be confidential, we have a duty to honor that commitment. We do not have a right to public access to absolutely everything for good reason.
8 pages of posts on this, does anybody have so much as a case name to get the actual District Court decision?
Ten pages and, unless I've missed it, no one has noted that the health care reform law has not been ruled unconstitutional. Not only did Hudson specifically decline to halt implementation of the law, he rejected the plaintiff's request that he rule the entire law unconstitutional. Instead, he ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional and specifically severed it from the rest of the law, which survives intact. From a court that was obviously going to rule against the ACA, this is a surprisingly favorable ruling.
Yes they are, there will be no pool of paying participants to shoulder their premiums.
I'm talking about Medicaid. That's funded through general tax revenue at the state and federal level, which is a bit different than premium-based insurance pools.
The healthcare reform legislation sought to subsidize existing medicare and medicaid, which both underpay practicioners and the health care industry, by increasing the pool of patients who overpaid, hence:
>The complete lack of effort to reduce aggregate healthy care costs
>the necessary inclusion of all citizens including the young and healthy who don't need much care in the system
>the advertised and otherwise illogical claims to saving billions of $ on future medicare expenses
>the unchallenged immediate increases in health care insurance for paying consumers once the legislation passed
>the openly disclosed discussion of a kind of premium parity in which the premiums for the most expensive patients would be reduced below market standards while the young and healthy would be forced to pay rates above the market value of their care
It's just a way to tax the young and healthy to pay for health care for the poor and unhealthy.
He ruled on only those portions of the law he reviewed and indicated he was using the "tried and true" conservative standard regarding those provisions.
He did not review the entire law; his ruling is not going to stand as the definitive word on Severability. The judgment includes that he didn't have enough information to rule on the entire law.
I'm sorry, but that's just not the case.
First, a summary judgment does not mean it was a summary hearing. It is a specific term for a specific type of final order handed out by the court after hearing all the facts and determining as a matter of law that there is only one possible outcome. The determinations of fact are not a material issue, either because there is no disagreement as in this case or because they simply don't matter.
