Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

We still have time to mess this up!

I did not have telepathic declassification on my 2022 bingo card.

Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

John Fetterman: Too Manly for Pennsylvania.  Paid for by the Oz for Senator campaign.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

This blog will pay for itself.

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

Let there be snark.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.

Nothing worth doing is easy.

You cannot shame the shameless.

You are here: Home / Politics / Activist Judges! / Another unimportant, illegitimate legal… event

Another unimportant, illegitimate legal… event

by | 53 Comments

This post is in: 

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.

Reader Interactions

53Comments

  3. 3.

    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.

  4. 4.

    Dennis SGMM

    For an outfit that bellyaches about frivolous lawsuits and the machinations of trial lawyers those Republicans are sure some litigating sumbitches.

  7. 7.

    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.

  8. 8.

    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.

  11. 11.

    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:

    “We have a packed schedule this fall as Congress works to create jobs and get our economy back on track,” Jentleson said. “The American people are sacrificing every day as they try to make ends meet in this tough economy – it’s not too much to ask Senator Vitter to sacrifice a few hours on his couch to vote on a bill that will create jobs and spur small-business entrepreneurship by streamlining our patent system. I’m sure he’s aware that there are televisions in the Capitol as well.”

  12. 12.

    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.

  14. 14.

    Zifnab

    All three judges in the case were appointed by Democrats, two by Obama.

    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.

  23. 23.

    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.

  25. 25.

    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.

  26. 26.

    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.

  27. 27.

    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.

  28. 28.

    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.

  29. 29.

    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).

  30. 30.

    lamh32

    OT, but John Brennan: No new prisoners to Guantanamo Bay

    The Obama administration has ruled out sending any new war-on-terror prisoners to Guantanamo Bay, President Barack Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser said Thursday.

    “We’re not going to bring people to Guantanamo,” Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan told reporters. “It’s this administration’s policy to close Guantanamo and, despite some congressional hurdles that have been put in our path, we’re going to continue to pursue that”…

  32. 32.

    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.

  36. 36.

    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.

  37. 37.

    kay

    @Makewi:

    A ridiculous assertion by the court, but whatever

    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”.

  38. 38.

    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…

  42. 42.

    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.

  44. 44.

    Hal

    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.

    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?

  46. 46.

    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.

  49. 49.

    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?

  51. 51.

    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?

Comments are closed.