- 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
re: Supreme Court rejects TX's challenge to the ACA, reversing 5th Circuit
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:16 am to udtiger
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:16 am to udtiger
quote:
ahhh...standing.
frick the SCOTUS. This is now their go to to avoid hard decisions.
I am really pissed.
Roberts saved this fricking leviathan in Sebelius solely under the taxing power. There was no standing issue.
This case was identically postured, but now the sole basis for the law being constitutional before had been removed. Whoopsie...standing.
This country is dead.
The Constitution is dead.
0
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:21 am to Indefatigable
BTW...the headlines and media reporting are presenting the same misleading headline as the OP.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:22 am to Indefatigable
The Supreme Court is an absolute joke.
How many cases have they avoided on the lack of standing claim? Really, what do they do?
I really don't want to hear about how important it is to put "conservatives" on the supreme court because you could probably count the lawyers at that level who will counter government overreach - even if unconstitutional - on one hand with fingers left over. They are part of the problem.
How many cases have they avoided on the lack of standing claim? Really, what do they do?
I really don't want to hear about how important it is to put "conservatives" on the supreme court because you could probably count the lawyers at that level who will counter government overreach - even if unconstitutional - on one hand with fingers left over. They are part of the problem.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:24 am to udtiger
What is misleading about the headline/thread title?
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:25 am to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
quote:
I’m tired of taking the high road and playing with a hand behind my back
What position in government do you hold?
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:29 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Alien Tort Statute
I wrote a paper on this once. Memories.
As for ACA, at least conceptually, you now have legislation that no longer has the poison pill of the mandate. The ACA probably would have been fine constitutionally if it never included it to begin with is the thought process. So with it at zero and no standing, the rest gets to survive as well.
At the end of the day, people voted Dem in 2008 and the Dems delivered the ACA, they got greedy with the mandate, which was really what everyone was pissed about to begin with. That part is effectively gone for now. The other regulations are onerous but no one really doubted the power to impose those that I recall.
This post was edited on 6/17/21 at 10:34 am
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:29 am to Indefatigable
Thanks.
And for we non-legal folks...dumbed down explaination of "redress"
Sometimes I just get confused on what SCOTUS is supposed to do.
And for we non-legal folks...dumbed down explaination of "redress"
Sometimes I just get confused on what SCOTUS is supposed to do.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:33 am to TOSOV
quote:
And for we non-legal folks...dumbed down explaination of "redress"
Redressability in this context basically questions whether a favorable decision by the court would actually “redress” or compensate, etc the plaintiffs injury.
Here, the court held that because the mandate was zero’d out and there is no enforcement of it, that a court decision calling it unconstitutional would not actually address the plaintiffs injury.
This post was edited on 6/17/21 at 10:35 am
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:35 am to TerryDawg03
I'm not sure there'd be a difference. Kav and Barrett are in fact gutless and essentially horrible people.
Horrible, horrible choices by Trump.
Horrible, horrible choices by Trump.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:38 am to TOSOV
quote:
Sometimes I just get confused on what SCOTUS is supposed to do.
One thing they aren't supposed to do is try to correct "bad" laws. While the ACA is arguably bad to some with the numerous requirements it placed on employers and insurers, that isn't within the Supreme Court's purview. Hence, why these cases have centered around the mandate and the tax, or in 2015 the subsidy.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:39 am to hogcard1964
quote:
I'm not sure there'd be a difference. Kav and Barrett are in fact gutless and essentially horrible people.
Jury is still out on Trump’s appointments, but I am not sure they are technically wrong here.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:42 am to Indefatigable
quote:
The Court held that the challengers (TX, 17 other states, and 2 individuals) lacked standing:
I just cannot
Posted on 6/17/21 at 10:46 am to Wednesday
I know it's maybe a bit circular getting to this place, but without the mandate being enforced there's really not a whole lot left to argue with regards to it's constitutionality. Bad and onerous law perhaps, but those parts were constitutional. Remember, it can still be replaced legislatively if people want that. It was very close to happening though I assume the winds are out the sails a bit.
This post was edited on 6/17/21 at 10:48 am
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:32 am to Indefatigable
quote:The problem here is the basis. Say, for example, Congress passed a law prohibiting Black people from voting—but didn’t enforce it. Would Black people have no standing?
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.
Allowing the government to have laws on the books it could potentially enforce arbitrarily at the time of its choosing is a form of threat under the right conditions.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:35 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Say, for example, Congress passed a law prohibiting Black people from voting—but didn’t enforce it. Would Black people have no standing?
I get what you mean but that would be different because once you get into suspect classifications (race, gender, etc.), the analysis changes somewhat. The court would axe that right out of the gate.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 12:25 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Nope. If the law isn’t enforced, per this decision, they’d have no standing.
I get what you mean but that would be different because once you get into suspect classifications (race, gender, etc.), the analysis changes somewhat.
quote:Quite the admission how inconsistent the court is in applying “standing” on issues it wants to avoid.
The court would axe that right out of the gate.
This post was edited on 6/17/21 at 12:26 pm
Posted on 6/17/21 at 12:26 pm to Indefatigable
quote:On standing ... allowing the POS's to ignore Constitutionality.
Supreme Court rejects TX's challenge to the ACA, reversing 5th Circuit
Posted on 6/17/21 at 12:32 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Nope. If the law isn’t enforced, per this decision, they’d have no standing.
Don’t agree here. As I said the first time, the race classification would indeed cause the analysis to be different. The law would be unconstitutional on its face.
Besides, states in your hypo could choose to enforce the voting restriction and it would cause injury to black people. A court decision overturning the law would address that injury.
In this case, even if states enforced the mandate, there is no actual penalty because it’s $0. A court decision wouldn’t redress that injury because there would be no actual injury caused by the states to redress. It would be an advisory opinion.
quote:
Quite the admission how inconsistent the court is in applying “standing” on issues it wants to avoid
Every single case is unique. Only on a few specific issues has SCOTUS ever been ‘consistent’
Standing sometimes can be a way to avoid ruling on an issue, but that isn’t really the case here.
This post was edited on 6/17/21 at 12:36 pm
Posted on 6/17/21 at 12:36 pm to Indefatigable
quote:I know. And you’re still wrong per the decision (if) it were applied in a consistent manner.
As I said the first time, the race classification would indeed cause the analysis to be different. The law would be unconstitutional on its face.
quote:The (mis)application of standing appears to becoming a pattern.
Every single case is unique. Only on a few specific issues has SCOTUS ever been ‘consistent’
quote:
Standing sometimes can be a way to avoid ruling on an issue, but that isn’t really the case here.
Just like the sky is green. Posted on 6/17/21 at 12:39 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
And you’re still wrong per the decision (if) it were applied in a consistent manner.
And I’ve already said a couple of times that it would not be applied consistently, and stated why.
All decisions do not carry forward to all other decisions uniformly.
quote:
The (mis)application of standing appears to becoming a pattern.
There’s nothing new about it. How else do you think the Court whittles down the thousands and thousands of writ requests to the 60 or so cases that they take each year?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News