Federal Court Tosses Health Care Reform Lawsuit - NBC29 WVIR Charlottesville, VA News, Sports and...

This is some shoddy research at best (willful misrepresentation more likely). This ruling did not affirm the government's right to require individuals to buy health insurance- it was dismissed because the panel ruled that the State of Virginia did not have standing to file the suit. Huge difference in legal terms- but easily painted differently by those who don't know into something else. It's like saying a court affirmed the right of company trucks to run over pedestrians if the court dismissed a case filed by an injured person's neighbor. The neighbor has no standing to file suit- not that there is no case.

YES!! Take that, Cuccinelli!

Well people that hope and change is about to take you for everything you have. Then let's see how you like it!!

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of ten? A judge

This is like the Govt coming up to ewe, cutting ewe legs off and knocking ewe down, but ewe get up and rehabilitate and enter the special olympics, but they tell ewe that ewe cannot run the race because ewe don't have standing because they cut ewe legs off. They then pull ewe pants down and buggar ewe and then claim ewe have no standing to complain about that either. And to add insult to injury, they do not have the common decency to give ewe a reach around.

Praise obama, he is the second coming!

Wait a sec wrote:

This is some shoddy research at best (willful misrepresentation more likely). This ruling did not affirm the government's right to require individuals to buy health insurance- it was dismissed because the panel ruled that the State of Virginia did not have standing to file the suit. Huge difference in legal terms- but easily painted differently by those who don't know into something else. It's like saying a court affirmed the right of company trucks to run over pedestrians if the court dismissed a case filed by an injured person's neighbor. The neighbor has no standing to file suit- not that there is no case.

Indeed, it seems like NBC29 reported on something they hadn't yet researched. Maybe the court's opinion isn't available yet (the Wash Post hasn't posted it yet), but still, pretty poor reporting to get it so grossly wrong. The interesting story, once it is reported, will focus on how Virginia's efforts to have manufactured standing to challenge the federal law were so easily tossed aside by the court. This won't be the last we hear on this, though -- most likely the plaintiffs will seek rehearing by the full 4th Circuit. Or maybe they needn't bother -- if they go straight to seeking cert by the Supremes along with the appeals of the 6th Circuit and 11th Circuit rulings, the fact that the plaintiffs in the other cases do have standing will essentially cure the standing deficiency of Virginia, and Virginia will get to play in the big dance after all. This 4th Circuit ruling, then, was just a nice action dodge by the appeals court, which now will never have to state its views on the constitutional merits of the individual mandate (the only real issue in any of the cases). The irony is that getting tossed on standing has traditionally been a result falling on progressive litigants running into hostile conservative judges -- but it and ripeness and waiver and failure to administratively exhaust are increasingly being used by both liberal and conservative judges to throw out cases brought by conservative activists. See, e.g., Medical Waste Institute v. EPA, DC Cir. 2011, in which extremely conservative Judge Sentelle wrote an opinion precluding big philosophical challenges to some EPA rules. Looks like judges are tired of being the fora of last resort for losing sides in big policy debates.

People can read it for themselves.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/111...

This is an Associated Press article, so you cannot expect accuracy. The ruling handed down by the 4th Circuit does not uphold the Constitutionality of the Obamacare mandate;it merely states that the Virginia AG lacks standing to challenge it at this time. Please, WVIR, do some fact-checking, especially where AP is involved.

Can't let democracy get in the way of the judicial system.

Liberal wrote:

Praise obama, he is the second coming!

Do you truly believe it is a blessing to see this crooked health scam bankrupt millions of families?

While I am glad to read that this was a case of VA's having no legal standing to bring the suit as opposed to the healthcard issue being or not being constitutional, I have to wonder when I read that all 3 judges involved were appointed by Democrats. Just a thought.

I also wondered why the other case that was tossed (in another state. Was it the constitutional aspect or the having no legal standing to bring it?

Well; well well; Coo-che-coo doesn't know how to practice law. Put forth a case, that if approved, would allow any state in the union to overturn ANY federal law passed by Congress. While I feel at times this may not be a bad thing, we can't have a Democracy if every state has the power to take such action.What a looser.
Oh, this applies to legislation from the left, from the right or from the T house.

Wonder how much more of our money this carpet bagger is going to waste. Chuck Shoemer of NY has it right when he said; " the convervatives will do anything, even hurt this country, rather than support our President.

As for calling Federal judges names, what do you call a Supreme Court Justice who accepts payments from a company, then finds in that company's favor in a court hearing?..Gay?,No. Smart? No. Thomas? YES.

Now there's a person you T-Baggers can look proudly upon. Even when the wind blows his skirt, ah robe up.

MORE TO COME.

George S wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you truly believe it is a blessing to see this crooked health scam bankrupt millions of families?

So ... you'd rather let the crooked insurance companies bankrupt millions of families? Why protect companies that are making billions of dollars of profit off your body.

Wait a sec wrote:

People can read it for themselves.
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/111...

Thanks for tracking it down. It's really 2 cases -- the very short and sweet one brought by Virginia, and the longer more complicated one brought by Liberty U. What's clear from the Liberty ruling is that HAD the court reached the merits and not found that the AIA barred any suit at all, at least 2 of the 3 judges on the panel (thus a majority) would have upheld Obamacare on the merits (albeit under different theories, one judge finding it a permissible tax, and the other finding it a permissible exerise of commerce clause authority). The dissenting judge in the Liberty case dissented on only the jurisdictional ruling, and would have ruled in favor of the Act along similar lines to those explained by the 6th Circuit, while portraying the reasoning of the 11th Cir. as being somewhat paranoid. Love the broccoli references especially! Sometimes it seems like it'd be fun to be a judge.

Sarg wrote:

This is an Associated Press article, so you cannot expect accuracy. The ruling handed down by the 4th Circuit does not uphold the Constitutionality of the Obamacare mandate;it merely states that the Virginia AG lacks standing to challenge it at this time. Please, WVIR, do some fact-checking, especially where AP is involved.

Right. And the separate but paired Liberty U ruling also tosses on jurisdiction, but 2 judges in concurring and dissenting opinions did explain why they would find Obamacare just fine on the constitutional merits. So maybe NBC29 got it partly right by accident, huh?

Rick wrote:

This is why we need a constitutional amendment to make it a crime for liberals to be judges. How can liberal Obama appointments impartially decide on Obamas economic crimes? I smell conflict of intrest!

Who appoints a judge is no guarantee about how they will reason and rule, and judges in general are far less likely to rule based on blatant political loyalty than legislators are likely to vote based on who greases their palms. And if who appointed one were to generate a conflict of interest for the appointee whenever a question regarding the validity of a law arises, we'd never get rulings at all -- some president always appoints some federal judge, and any existing federal statute has to have been signed by some president. It is quite common for a recently appointed judge to have to rule on a recently enacted law. More likely to be subject to a conflict of interest would be a judge hearing a case regarding an issue that his spouse is directly involved in lobbying about (i.e., Clarence Thomas, if the Obamacare fight gets to the Supremes).

Intelligence wrote:

Well people that hope and change is about to take you for everything you have. Then let's see how you like it!!

Your screen name is misleading.

Liberal wrote:

Praise obama, he is the second coming!

What was the first coming?

George S wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you truly believe it is a blessing to see this crooked health scam bankrupt millions of families?

Good to hear from you. Write again when you know what you're talking about.