Tom Monaghan's Xtian law center sues over health care overhaul, says it's unconstitutional

[Bozita]

This sure as hell ain't the kind of Christianity I grew up with.


http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/michigan-based_group_sues_over.html

Michigan-based group sues over health care overhaul, says it's unconstitutional
By The Associated Press
March 23, 2010, 12:56PM


DETROIT — A Michigan-based Christian legal advocacy group is suing the federal government to stop the massive health care overhaul, claiming it's unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was filed immediately after President Barack Obama signed the overhaul bill Tuesday. It names Obama and the leaders of the U.S. departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury and Justice in their official capacities.

The Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor says the lawsuit was filed on behalf of itself and four people from southeast Michigan who don't have private health insurance and object to being told to purchase coverage.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The lawsuit comes as attorneys general from 13 states sued to stop the overhaul in federal court in Pensacola, Fla.

[Deep13]

1. Blessed are the capitalists, for they already own the earth. nt

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Time to find a pizza alternative to Domino's.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2003/09/01/350799/index.htm

[kestrel91316]

3. Can't sue, no standing, not one soul has been harmed yet.

Where do these schmucks buy their worthless law degrees anyway?

[The Magistrate]

4. Exactly, Ma'am

One would have to suspect they send off cereal box-tops....

[Bozita]

5. Ave Maria Law School?

Monaghan's personal law school.

[brooklynite]

6. That kind of petty argument wouldn't stop Orly Taitz, Dentist at Law...

[Bozita]

10. Orly Taitz and Ave Maria Law School -- a match made in heaven

[Xithras]

7. Standing doesn't actually require that harm be done yet.

Trolled from Wiki, but it's essentially correct:

The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.

A plaintiff has standing if he/she can show that they will imminently suffer from the law as well. The question is whether a judge will consider four years to be sufficiently "imminent" to grant standing.

[Deep13]

9. "an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized"

It has to be a legal injury even if it is not a physical or economic one. I suppose it is conceivable that someone somewhere might have a particularized claim from this, but it has to be something beyond being a taxpayer or something like that. AFAIK, the Fed. courts only accept taxpayer standing for establishment clause claims.

[Deep13]

8. They get them here: ...

[Bozita]

11. kick for the late-night crowd

[NC_Nurse]

12. Because Jesus didn't want to help the poor. He hated them, right?

WTF? These people are SO un-Christian.