US Supreme Court rejects Republican
challenge to ObamaCare law
New York Post,
by
Mark Moore
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
6/17/2021 11:09:38 AM
The US Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a Republican bid that had been backed by former President Donald Trump’s administration to invalidate the ObamaCare health care law, ruling that Texas and other challengers had no legal standing to file their lawsuit.The 7-2 ruling authored by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer did not decide broader legal questions raised in the case about whether a key provision in the law, which is formally called the Affordable Care Act, was unconstitutional and, if so, whether the rest of the statute should be struck down.The provision, called the “individual mandate,”
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Miceal 6/17/2021 11:13:16 AM (No. 818486)
Ah, the old "No Legal Standing to Sue" BeeEss raises it's ugly head...again.
28 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
downnout 6/17/2021 11:16:17 AM (No. 818488)
It is no longer about constitutional law, it’s about the chaos that would ensue if Scotus overturned the ACÁ. The Supremes have become a bunch of political cowards.
32 people like this.
I would like to know what Clarence Thomas' opinion was on this since he voted against it. I trust his opinion more than any other justice, and suspect if he didn't support, there were some glaring flaws in the case as presented.
35 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Mushroom 6/17/2021 11:33:32 AM (No. 818499)
If a law affects me, why wouldn't I have standing? Since the Commerce clause has been perverted, why is this allowed to stand?
18 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
bamapreacher 6/17/2021 11:38:27 AM (No. 818504)
FTA: "...Republicans fiercely opposed ObamaCare when it was proposed, failed to repeal it when they controlled both chambers of Congress..." And we know why they failed to repeal it. Thanks, traitor John McCain. Rot in he//.
18 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
DVC 6/17/2021 11:40:44 AM (No. 818508)
If the AG's of states do not "have standing", no person on planet Earth could possibly have standing.
This is just Crooked Roberts' way of saying " we are going to let Congress do anything it wants, and you can't get us to rule on this matter, EVER".
15 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
jimincalif 6/17/2021 11:45:13 AM (No. 818513)
This seems frustrating, but if Justice Thomas concurs I have to think it is a reasonable decision. "Standing" as a legal concept is important as at least some minimal check on anyone litigating anything with anyone.
8 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
wakeupcall 6/17/2021 11:46:10 AM (No. 818514)
Congratulations America.
Americans who have to pay for this atrocious atrocity unconstitutional law have no standing is an abomination against freedom of the people.
Our not supreme court now has 5 Marxist Communist justices serving their lifetime for the Global Marxist Communist One World Government.
10 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
FunOne 6/17/2021 11:50:50 AM (No. 818517)
President Trump went to the wall for Kavanaugh and Barrett, and the democrats fought him all the way.
Both are proving themselves to be as staunch conservatives as was Ruth B Ginsberg.
When Trump returns to the White House, he needs to review the people who advised him to appoint Kavanaugh and Barrett so he can be sure to never seek their advice again.
The reality is that the liberals hold a 7-2 advantage on the Supreme Court.
14 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Avikingman 6/17/2021 11:51:48 AM (No. 818518)
Supine court chuff Roberts, again.
8 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Ribicon 6/17/2021 12:00:31 PM (No. 818523)
"A republic, if you can keep it," said the old man.
11 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Son of Grady 6/17/2021 12:16:00 PM (No. 818545)
Every branch and agency in the Washington klan is blackmailed or weaponized.
10 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
KatieJo 6/17/2021 12:27:57 PM (No. 818561)
We have no standing because we are not a free people, we are slaves to the state. They have proven that they can do whatever they want. All of our protective institutions have been corrupted beyond reform.
13 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 6/17/2021 12:35:06 PM (No. 818571)
Both the Federal District Court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Plaintiffs had standing in this case, styled California et al vs. Texas et al.
The Supreme Court "Held: Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge §5000A(a)’s minimum essential coverage provision because they have not shown a past or future injury fairly traceable to defendants’ conduct enforcing the specific statutory provision they attack as unconstitutional."
7 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
padiva 6/17/2021 1:00:01 PM (No. 818593)
Why can't there be 2 plans? Leave O'care there, to exist and stink.
The new (Trump) plan would be a better plan.
People can choose which plan suits them best.
When people see the O'care is pathetic, they will choose the better plan.
O'care will die a slow painful death because no one will want it.
2 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
anniebc 6/17/2021 2:03:58 PM (No. 818634)
The useless SC.
3 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
skacmar 6/17/2021 2:59:19 PM (No. 818698)
The latest Supreme Court excuse for not actually ruling on anything lately seems to be "standing". Who exactly does have "standing" to challenge the legality of Obamacare? Nobody it seems. Same with who has/had "standing" to challenge the election questions? Nobody.
5 people like this.
So who does have standing if the states don’t?
5 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
Geoman 6/17/2021 4:23:37 PM (No. 818768)
Congress certainly has standing, so the solution appears to be to take back both chambers of Congress and cancel Obamacare through new legislation.
4 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
Muguy 6/17/2021 7:01:38 PM (No. 818910)
The whole stinking mess is unconstitutional because Nobamacare did not origninate in the HOUSE.
If it was a "tax" it HAD to come from there to be Constitutional.
Lord help us!
1 person likes this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
mifla 6/18/2021 5:24:57 AM (No. 819213)
OK Supremes, then who does have standing?
0 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
homefry 6/18/2021 7:30:47 AM (No. 819279)
obamacare is unconstitutional on at least 2 counts. # 1, it WAS NOT APPROVED BY CONGRESS. To become law, a bill must pass both houses of congress, and this one did not. It passed in one form or another in both houses but the FINAL BILL, the one that became law, was passed in the house and sent to the senate where it had to be amended to get the votes. THEN it was sent back to the house as amended, which means it is now a new bill. The house DID NOT VOTE on the amended bill, it was DEEMED passed. dim-0s said, RECONSILLIATION. That made it a tax bill. Tax bills MUST, to become law, come from the house of reps, this one came from the senate.
Also, it was amended several times by obama only after it became law, with NO VOTES in either house.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
The 'two' were: Alito and Gorsuch