Opponents to Obamacare Win Round I

[guido911]

Love the title of this headline, as if MSNBC was stunned about the ruling:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38522261/ns/politics/

[nathanm]

Similarly, I love the title of your post, given that you know full well how unlikely it would be for the Federal Government to succeed in getting the case dismissed at this early stage.

[guido911]

Similarly, I love the title of your post, given that you know full well how unlikely it would be for the Federal Government to succeed in getting the case dismissed at this early stage.

Why would I know that? The feds were successful in Arizona re: SB 1070 at an early stage (or does that one not count).

[Conan71]

Why would I know that? The feds were successful in Arizona re: SB 1070 at an early stage (or does that one not count).

Depends on those activist judges 

[nathanm]

Why would I know that? The feds were successful in Arizona re: SB 1070 at an early stage (or does that one not count).

The feds got an injunction against enforcement of some parts of the law. That's not remotely equivalent to winning or losing a motion to dismiss at such an early stage. One disposes of the matter immediately and requires essentially that there be no factual dispute to adjudicate, while the other does not. I can't help but think you're being intentionally obtuse.

[Gaspar]

Funny thing is that many folks called this one the day Obamacare passed.  There is no way it could withstand challenge, because it clearly violates the interstate commerce clause.

You can't force people to buy a good or service.  You just can't.

[swake]

Funny thing is that many folks called this one the day Obamacare passed.  There is no way it could withstand challenge, because it clearly violates the interstate commerce clause.

You can't force people to buy a good or service.  You just can't.

They aren't being forced to buy anything. They avoid a tax if they buy the service.

[Conan71]

They aren't being forced to buy anything. They avoid a tax if they buy the service.

You don't think that's arm-twisting?

[RecycleMichael]

You can't force people to buy a good or service.  You just can't.

You mean like the state making me buy car insurance in order to get my car license plates? Or do you mean like the state making me buy workmen's compensation insurance in order to hire a person? Maybe you mean the annual license fee I pay to have a dog?

Can't?

[Conan71]

You mean like the state making me buy car insurance in order to get my car license plates? Or do you mean like the state making me buy workmen's compensation insurance in order to hire a person? Maybe you mean the annual license fee I pay to have a dog?

Can't?

None of those are the Federal government forcing it on you.  That's either state or city.  What's at issue is control over interstate commerce.

[Gaspar]

They aren't being forced to buy anything. They avoid a tax if they buy the service.

I like that. 

Instead of
Buy this or we will punish you.

It's
We will reward you if you buy this (by not punishing you).

Hell of a deal.  We should apply that to all kinds of enterprise. 
"Buy an iPhone 4 and we won't punch you in the face."
"Eat at Mahoganies, and we won't burn your house down."
"Subscribe to the Tulsa World and our delivery boy won't trench your lawn."

You can save yourself a lot of grief by taking advantage of these fantastic deals!

Give me a break.

[Gaspar]

You mean like the state making me buy car insurance in order to get my car license plates? Or do you mean like the state making me buy workmen's compensation insurance in order to hire a person? Maybe you mean the annual license fee I pay to have a dog?

Can't?

You do not have to buy insurance or license plates.  Only if you intend to drive on federal/state owned roads.

You do not have to buy workman's comp if you don't hire anyone or if you hire under contract.

The Obamacare bill has a requirement to purchase health insurance or a penalty for failing to do so.

[guido911]

The feds got an injunction against enforcement of some parts of the law. That's not remotely equivalent to winning or losing a motion to dismiss at such an early stage. One disposes of the matter immediately and requires essentially that there be no factual dispute to adjudicate, while the other does not. I can't help but think you're being intentionally obtuse.

Do you know what an temporary injunction even is? That is a compelling finding since to obtain one the person seeking that relief must "establish four factors: (1) it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, (2) its threatened injury outweighs the harm caused to the opposing party as a result of the injunction, (3) the injunction is not adverse to the public interest, and (4) it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case." Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 356 F.3d 1256, 1260 (10th Cir.(Colo.) 2004)(Citation omitted); Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. (Cal.) 1999). To meet the "irreparable harm", the movant's purported injury " must be certain, great, actual and not theoretical." Heideman v. South Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1188-89 (10th Cir. (Utah) 2003). The government's victory was very substantial and most certainly on par with surviving a motion to dismiss (and who cares that only part of the Arizona law was affected, if you read the Virginia case, you would know it was focused on the individual mandate and not the entire Obamacare).

As for the motion to dismiss ruling, which given your post you clearly haven't, you would note the following. In this opinion, the Court determined several preliminary matters apart from the motion to dismiss, such as Virgina having standing to challenge and ripeness, both very significant findings since it now opens the door to the state.

As for your "standard" for motion to dismiss, that is incorrect. In the opinion, you will notice on pages 17-18 the following correct standard: "To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge, a complaint need only state a legally viable cause of action. "A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint; importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses."" (Citation omitted).

Moreover, the Court made several observations which do not bode well (at least at this point) for the government. For instance, on page 18 it states that the mandate "literally forges new ground and extends Commerce Clause powers beyond its current high water mark". There is even more compelling language similar to the foregoing near the very end of the order.

Nate, knowing lawyers does not make you close to authority on the complexities of constitutional law or even motion practice. Most certainly does not give you any basis for saying anyone is "obtuse". Please free to try again though.  

Below is the opinion for all to read.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/Hudson%20opinion%20MTD.pdf

[Cats Cats Cats]

Funny thing is that many folks called this one the day Obamacare passed.  There is no way it could withstand challenge, because it clearly violates the interstate commerce clause.

You can't force people to buy a good or service.  You just can't.

As was said, nobody is being forced to buy anything.  You don't have to have health insurance, it isn't required.  Taxes have increased in the past right?  And you get a tax deduction for having a mortgage?  So therefore you are forced to buy a house?  I mean seriously...

[custosnox]

As was said, nobody is being forced to buy anything.  You don't have to have health insurance, it isn't required.  Taxes have increased in the past right?  And you get a tax deduction for having a mortgage?  So therefore you are forced to buy a house?  I mean seriously...

Nah, you can go without it and get a fine.   No differance there at all.

Oh, and you don't HAVE to drive 65, that's just a suggestion, feel free to drive as fast as you want.