We’ll see if this gets breathless over-the-top coverage. I doubt it:
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a challenge to President Obama’s signature health law on Thursday, deciding that the plaintiffs in the case didn’t have standing to contest the legislation.
Two of the three judges determined that lawsuits by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University challenging the health care law’s individual mandate should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. In previous hearings, judges had expressed skepticism that the two had the standing to challenge the mandate section of the bill given that it applied to individuals and not institutions.
“Thus, if we were to adopt Virginia’s standing theory, each state could become a roving constitutional watchdog of sorts,” she wrote. “No issue, no matter how generalized or quintessentially political, would fall beyond a state’s power to litigate in federal court.”
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Andre Davis wrote that he would have examined the law and upheld the mandate on the legal merits rather than dismiss the suit. All three judges in the case were appointed by Democrats, two by Obama. Previously, the 11th Circuit ruled the law unconstitutional while the 6th Circuit determined the law was legally sound.
All three judges were appointed by Democrats, so are therefore not real judges, of course. Plus. In addition. Standing is a “technicality”, unless conservatives are arguing against standing, then it’s bedrock.
eemom
sweeeeeeeeet…….and all the sweeter because that despicable fuck Cuccinelli loses.
Elizabelle
Awesome.
kay
@eemom:
I thought of you, I really did.
“Roving constitutional watchdog”. He must hate that. It so smacks of prosecutorial over-reach and political motivation.
Dennis SGMM
For an outfit that bellyaches about frivolous lawsuits and the machinations of trial lawyers those Republicans are sure some litigating sumbitches.
jwb
@Dennis SGMM: Projection, as always. It’s what Republicans do best.
Ben Cisco
OT, but Reid has a message for the Senate GOPper speech-skippers.
__
Love the part where Diaper Dave whines about missing his Saints game party. They’ve been back at work how long?
DFH no.6
Ah – Liberty “University”.
Fundamentalist “Christians” fighting against policies that promote, in modern world terms, Sermon on the Mount Jesus.
Will wonders never cease?
Goddamn Pharisees is who they really are, the lot of them. “Whited sepulchers” also has a nice Good Book ring to it.
Hateful sanctimonious phony bastards works, too.
Steve
This was almost literally a nullification argument. Normally a state doesn’t have standing to sue on behalf of its citizens; the citizens have to sue themselves. Virginia tried to get around this by passing a law that says “no citizen of this state can be forced to buy health insurance,” and then arguing that now they have standing because they have to be able to enforce their state law.
This theory would mean that any state that wants to challenge a federal law could overcome the standing requirement simply by passing a nullification statute and then claiming that they have to be allowed to “enforce” their statute. I was pretty surprised that the district judge agreed with Virginia’s standing argument, because it seemed pretty absurd to me. There’s little doubt in my mind that the appeals court got this one right.
Individual plaintiffs from Virginia still get to challenge the health care law, as long as they can allege that it injures them somehow, but at least this puts a stop to Cuccinelli’s little taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@Ben Cisco: Of course my jackass rep wasn’t leaving town so he’ll just do what he was going to do anyway.
rlrr
Activist Judges! or something…
Nutella
@Ben Cisco:
All I can say is I hope Reid keeps on calling bullshit like this, and all the other Ds, too. It’s a simple and clear message.
Reid’s spokesman:
Sam Houston
The SCotUSBlog had a great symposium on the ACA. There’s so much win in the essays. Also, plenty of suits with good standing before the court. Everybody’s gonna get their day before the bench.
Bulworth
activist judges! tyranny!
Zifnab
At least now we know why none of those judicial appointments are going through. Gotta hold out for President Perry to put a bunch of nutters on the bench.
Roger Moore
@Ben Cisco:
Say what you will about Reid being a wimp, but he sure knows how to work Senate procedural stuff.
Ben Cisco
@Roger Moore: And make the NeoConfederates look like the whiny little punks they are. Moar of this please.
lacp
@Ben Cisco: I don’t think I really need to know what happens at a David Vitter party with his “constituents.”
Hal
That’s a joke in and of itself
rlrr
@Hal:
Liberty University was founded by someone whose only actual degree was from an unaccredited Bible college…
Bulworth
@Roger Moore: Holy sweet jeebus. Well played Mr. Reid.
rlrr
@rlrr:
Here’s a typical Liberty University graduate: http://www.trumpetofthelord.com/
Ben Cisco
@lacp: What happens in diapers should stay in diapers.
__
I know, it’s awful. But dude was running around in DIAPERS! DIAPERS I SAY!
Yutsano
This will only get attention in the context of ZOMG librul activists Obama judges!! Otherwise it will mostly get ignored. At least until Rush raises an unholy stink about it.
rlrr
Fun fact: Liberty University’s nickname – Flames
rumpole
@ steve
I read it the exact same way–“this issue was decided long ago in places like Bull Run and Gettysburg. So take your Confederate bullshit and go home.” Any suggestion that 2011 Rs are anything but the vestiges of John C. Calhoun don’t deserve to be taken seriously.
My father gave me grief recently about saying that all R’s are insane. They’re not. Only the ones with power.
jwb
@rumpole: Should have asked your dad to name one who’s not insane. Because these days even those who probably aren’t insane have been forced to act insane in order to avoid being primaried.
ppcli
@rlrr: A shame that their GLBTQ population has to stay underground. “Going down in flames since 1984” is a great slogan for for a campus organization.
rumpole
This is fucking remarkable: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/mcdonnell-virginia-expected-to-lose-health-care-lawsuit-will-appeal/2011/09/08/gIQAzfdWCK_blog.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
Elected politicians are NOT supposed to say this. What you say is that “we disagree with the court’s reasoning, respect its decision, and plan to appeal.” Not: “the decision’s wrong, but we knew it was going to be wrong because there were Democratic judges on the panel.” That’s basically saying the ruling’s illegitimate because of who appointed its members.
Ironically enough, the Court’s going to hear a case in October about whether an individual consumer has standing to sue a corporation if the only injury that the consumer suffers is that the corporation broke the law in a transaction regarding the consumer, but the consumer suffered no harm as a result. (The statute provides for statutory damages payable to the consumer upon proof of a violation). (First American v Edwards). Odds are the corporation may well win that one, with 5 “legitimate” votes.
Kafka would be proud.
retr2327
Nice to see Cuccinelli get smacked down, but other than that, it really is pretty much of a technicality, since it doesn’t reach the merits one way or the other (although the dissent does, and would uphold, which is a plus).
lamh32
OT, but John Brennan: No new prisoners to Guantanamo Bay
Brian
Not a single mention of it on CNN
Makewi
A ridiculous assertion by the court, but whatever. We already have dueling opinions on this issue – so this one will be headed to the USSC.
Ben Cisco
@Brian: Of course not – the narrative must not be impeded. Besides, they’d be dismissed as librul usurper sycophants if they – oh, wait…
cleek
@lamh32:
Obama fails us yet again.
Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen
@Nutella: Normally a spanking like that would set Vitter back at least $75.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@cleek: Yes, why didn’t Obama close Gitmo in 2007? You know a President Palin would have had the whole camp (gassed) and closed by now.
kay
@Makewi:
You’re so much fun. That’s an assertion you just made, Makewi.
What’s it based on? Let’s hear your standing argument. May any state pass a statute intended to confer standing (as here) and thus challenge any federal law?
Try not to use the word “broccoli”.
Ben Cisco
@Enhanced Voting Techniques: No, no NO! Palin would have kept it open, and after all them furriners were done fer, she’d have started in on the libruls!
__
“Which ones?”
__
“All of them!”
__
Actually, given the vote supression and other crap going on, this seems to be their modus operandi anyhow…
Cat Lady
@kay:
I’m making popcorn.
kay
@Makewi:
Or, just shout “it’s unconstitutional!” over and over, really loud.
I love that technique. Easy! I’m envious.
Ben Cisco
@lamh32: This is even better news. Time for the petulant children to find out they don’t get to run the show.
Cheryl from Maryland
@kay: Yeah for you Kay. If this ruling is a technicality, it is because VA’s law was a technicality to kill AHC. Steve at #8 has it in a nutshell – the state was trying to game the court. Courts don’t like that.
soonergrunt
@Makewi: You only think that because you’re pants-pissingly stupid.
Hal
I find that very interesting, and understand the Judge wanted to rule on the merits of the lawsuit, by why dissent at all? Does he disagree with the other Judges in their opinion, or did he just want to rule the law itself constitutional?
Samara Morgan
don’t feel bad Kay, this isnt gettin any coverage either.
did you know tomorrow is september 9?
soonergrunt
@Hal: If he holds that the majority was wrong to dismiss on the standing grounds, then he dissents, even as he may agree with the outcome. It may not be a dissent, so much as a separate concurrence. Possibly the story writer couldn’t tell the difference if that was the case.
And yes, I DO read Appeals briefs and Bench decisions for relaxation. I started that habit with Kitzmiller v. Dover which was fascinating reading. However, IANAL.
lamh32
Okay, OT again, but I would love to see what body language experts think about this
Seen during the commercial break at last night’s debate
ugh, is old man Perry trying to intimidate old man Paul?
I don’t know about ya’ll, but if anybody grabbed ahold of my arm like this and had the nerve to wag their finger in my face…they’d be pulling back a nub. I’m just saying.
cleek
@lamh32:
i’da snapped that greasy finger clean off.
(well, i’d at least have laughed at him)
catclub
@Samara Morgan: Isn’t there some news about the Iraqis not agreeing to _any_ remaining US forces. Or perhaps 3000 ‘trainers’, which is still far lower than the US military would like to have there?
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@lamh32: You can’t tell shit from a shot like that.
lamh32
@Raven (formerly stuckinred): naw you can’t really tell anything from most pictures. It just seems to me that Perry’s holding on a lil too tight to Mr Paul arm there.
Plus it’s interesting, but Ron Paul claims he’s never met Rick Perry before. how can that be?
lamh32
@Raven (formerly stuckinred):
I was mostly kidding about perry v paul in my comment, but the paul-ites are not.
Ron Paul’s fanatics are crazy.
Ron Paul’s Fans Rush to Protect Him From Rick Perry’s ‘Assault’
Samara Morgan
@catclub: i meant sadr’s rally on the 9th.
tomorrow.
not the US’s pathetic and doomed attempt to keep infuence in Iraq.