Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court rejects ObamaCare challenge from doctors' group
thehill ^ | Jan. 12, 2015 | Sarah Ferris

Posted on 01/12/2015 12:52:07 PM PST by PROCON

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a 2-year-old legal challenge to a central provision of ObamaCare from a conservative doctors group.

The case, which was led by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, sought to strike down the law’s individual mandate, which fines individuals who fail to purchase health insurance.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aca; obamacare; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: PROCON

I’m thinking the opposite. I think the case that they do have before them is a loser for Obama....and therefore, this new case is moot for the time being.


21 posted on 01/12/2015 5:05:20 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder

Define “true” and “valid” in this context.


22 posted on 01/15/2015 4:24:36 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

The group of doctors did not, themselves, suffer damage from the passage of the bill, which at the time the suit was brought did not affect them. The perceived or forecast effects did not harm them. It claimed that, if passed, as passed, the bill would have this and that affect which the docs group characterized as “harmful”. Their position was one of theoretical advocacy.

That means they themselves did not suffer those ill results. That means they do not/did not have standing in the legal sense.


23 posted on 01/15/2015 5:37:05 PM PST by Attention Surplus Disorder (At no time was the Obama administration aware of what the Obama administration was doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder

What doctors did not suffer damage from the passage of this bill?


24 posted on 01/15/2015 5:38:19 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

The ones that brought the suit. That’s why they have no standing.


25 posted on 01/15/2015 5:52:42 PM PST by Attention Surplus Disorder (At no time was the Obama administration aware of what the Obama administration was doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder

How are they not harmed?

It is most likely that all physicians are harmed by this legislation. It does not have to be that they end up unemployed.


26 posted on 01/15/2015 5:53:56 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

It doesn’t work the way you think it should. It works the way it works.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing

It is astronomically difficult for any plaintiff to achieve standing against the government, who, it is assumed by the court, has the magnanimous wisdom to pass laws that are universally beneficial. That is the way it is.


27 posted on 01/15/2015 6:04:30 PM PST by Attention Surplus Disorder (At no time was the Obama administration aware of what the Obama administration was doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder

Why wouldn’t any doctor have a personal stake in being damaged by the PPACA?


28 posted on 01/15/2015 6:10:29 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

The article I linked explains exactly why. It can’t be on a theoretical “we think this will happen” basis. It has to be “this already happened” basis.


29 posted on 01/15/2015 6:14:19 PM PST by Attention Surplus Disorder (At no time was the Obama administration aware of what the Obama administration was doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder

Seems like this is based on the recent reinterpretation of standing. That in and of itself might be unconstitutional.


30 posted on 01/15/2015 6:29:51 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson