- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Supreme Court rejects TX's challenge to the ACA, reversing 5th Circuit
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:33 am
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:33 am
Opinion
7-2 decision written by Breyer, with Sotomayor, Kagan, Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joining the majority and Thomas filing a concurring opinion.
Alito and Gorsuch dissented.
The Court held that the challengers (TX, 17 other states, and 2 individuals) lacked standing:
From Breyer's opinion:
ETA: Other major decisions today:
7-2 decision written by Breyer, with Sotomayor, Kagan, Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joining the majority and Thomas filing a concurring opinion.
Alito and Gorsuch dissented.
The Court held that the challengers (TX, 17 other states, and 2 individuals) lacked standing:
quote:
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.
From Breyer's opinion:
quote:
"To find standing here to attack an unenforceable statutory provision would allow a federal court to issue what would amount to 'an advisory opinion without the possibility of any judicial relief.'"
ETA: Other major decisions today:
quote:
In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the ruled 9-0 in favor of a Catholic organization that argued its religious rights were violated when it was excluded from a foster-care program due to its refusal to certify same-sex couples.
quote:
In Nestlé Inc. v. Doe, the justices ruled 8-1 that a lawsuit against Nestlé and Cargill, brought under the Alien Tort Statute by former child slaves in Ivory Coast, may not proceed in the United States.
This post was edited on 6/17/21 at 9:52 am
15
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:35 am to Indefatigable
The ACA is simple. You can't force someone to buy something by law.
They did it anyway. That and the Patriot act are the two worst fed gov't moves since LBJ ran roughshod over black people.
They did it anyway. That and the Patriot act are the two worst fed gov't moves since LBJ ran roughshod over black people.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:36 am to Indefatigable
Poor choice of words. They did not uphold. They simply stated they had no standing.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:37 am to Indefatigable
kav and barrett were terrible choices
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:40 am to Jjdoc
quote:
Poor choice of words. They did not uphold. They simply stated they had no standing.
Which has the practical effect of upholding the law, but I edited so the entire thread doesn't devolve into semantics.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:41 am to Big4SALTbro
quote:
kav and barrett were terrible choices
Because they agree that there was no standing?
I do not want my Supreme's to have a political position. I suspect they are correct here.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:41 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Which has the practical effect of upholding the law,
WTF?
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:42 am to Indefatigable
So tired of this "standing" bullshite
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:45 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
WTF?
What? Throwing the suit out keeps the law in place.
"The call on the field stands"
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:45 am to ShoeBang
All's I know is ObamaCare is expensive because we pay for every illegals healthcare. Frick SCOTUS
This post was edited on 6/17/21 at 9:46 am
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:45 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:well, at least half of them do. I’m tired of taking the high road and playing with a hand behind my back as the Dems play dirty at every turn. We’re going to have to get neck deep in the mud, too, or this country will get eaten alive by the communists from the inside
I do not want my Supreme's to have a political position.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:55 am to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
So...in no particular order...who the frick has standing to challenge the order/tax of aca when there is no tax to support the requirement?
does an individual? a group health plan? And, why does a state not have standing when they are forced to contend with the regulations requiring expenditure of money for the plan?
Seems like scotus is in the process of doing nothing that may change any liberal undertaking. Does not bode well for any abortion legislation coming up and...probably not good for gun rights
does an individual? a group health plan? And, why does a state not have standing when they are forced to contend with the regulations requiring expenditure of money for the plan?
Seems like scotus is in the process of doing nothing that may change any liberal undertaking. Does not bode well for any abortion legislation coming up and...probably not good for gun rights
Posted on 6/17/21 at 9:58 am to dafif
quote:
So...in no particular order...who the frick has standing to challenge the order/tax of aca when there is no tax to support the requirement?
It sounds like SCOTUS would only find standing in this circumstance if there was a state continuing to enforce the mandate.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:00 am to Indefatigable
quote:
ETA: Other major decisions today: quote:In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the ruled 9-0 in favor of a Catholic organization that argued its religious rights were violated when it was excluded from a foster-care program due to its refusal to certify same-sex couples
Hey. It looks like they got something right for once. And all 9 got it right. I will consider this a victory
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:01 am to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
So tired of this "standing" bullshite
Standing is defined as the legal right to initiate a lawsuit and to do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand.
This not a Constitutional edict, it is a judicial construct and not a matter of LAW legally passed and adopted by the legislative branch. As such it is Unconstitutional.
Don't expect the courts to kill their sacred cow though, they like the milk.
This post was edited on 6/17/21 at 10:04 am
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:02 am to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
So tired of this "standing" bullshite
Yeah....is there an official definition of "standing" so we know what to bring and not? Ha. Apparently it means something different in TX
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:04 am to Big4SALTbro
quote:
kav and barrett were terrible choices
They’re far better choices than whoever HRC would have appointed. Never forget that.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:07 am to TOSOV
quote:
.is there an official definition of "standing" so we know what to bring and not
Speaking very generally, espcially with SCOTUS, standing requires (i) injury, (ii) causation, and (iii) redressability.
The ACA case was tossed because SCOTUS found that there was no judicial redress available to the challengers, and the Court does not issue advisory opinions.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:12 am to Indefatigable
There are only two constitutionalists on the SC.
The rest are activists.
What a terrible picks for Trump.
He failed bigly on his supreme judges
The rest are activists.
What a terrible picks for Trump.
He failed bigly on his supreme judges
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:13 am to Indefatigable
ahhh...standing.
frick the SCOTUS. This is now their go to to avoid hard decisions.
frick the SCOTUS. This is now their go to to avoid hard decisions.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News