Experts say states' health care lawsuits don't stand a chance

[babylonsister]

Experts say states' health care lawsuits don't stand a chance

By James Rosen | McClatchy Newspapers

snip//

Several noted law professors said that there are significant legal hurdles in establishing the states' standing to challenge the health-care law and in persuading federal judges that it violates the Constitution.

Congress is empowered by the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce. Some opponents of the new law argue that Congress's mandate that individuals must purchase insurance from private vendors is unprecedented, because uninsured individuals aren't participating in commerce. Many constitutional law experts, however, said that the health insurance mandate is clearly within Congress' reach under the Constitution.

"It would be surprising if the (Supreme Court) says Congress can't regulate people who are participating in the $1 trillion health-care market," said David Freeman Engstrom, a Stanford University Law School professor. "The lawsuit probably doesn't have legs both as a matter of precedent and as a matter of common sense."

Sanford Levinson, a University of Texas Law School professor, said that Americans who choose not to purchase health insurance can pay a fine under the new law. Congress, he said, clearly has the authority to levy taxes and fines.

"As a technical matter, it's been set up as a tax," Levinson said of the penalties under the health-care law. "The argument about constitutionality is, if not frivolous, close to it," he said.

"You'd have to imagine that the five conservative Republicans on the Supreme Court will be willing to invalidate the most important piece of social legislation in 50 years on the basis of a highly tendentious and controversial reading of the Constitution."

more...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/23/90934/states-lawsuits-not-likely-to.html

[meow2u3]

1. Contrary to repuke AGs' assertion, there are no unfunded mandates

All the mandates have Federal funding in the form of subsidies for middle-class policyholders. They're whining about rich people having to get insurance out of their own pockets, as if they couldn't afford to take out a policy.

[fasttense]

2. The five Dancing Supremes are corporate lackeys first and justices last.

They will never vote against making people buy crap from corporations. They love corporations. They believe corporations are people and deserve all the support this country can give the faceless, heartless money grubbers.

[patrice]

6. bingo!

[elocs]

3. I've heard that a negative ruling would invalidate that part of the bill,

not all of it.

Interesting how Republicans should be against having people pay their fair share of something.

[DCBob]

4. I also do not understand how they can file a suit on something in the future..

The individual mandates don't even kick in until 2014.

[HereSince1628]

5. But, winning in court may not really be the goal

according to my intercepts picked up by my tin-foil, it's a matter of showing solidarity and demonstrating the Government that brought us the War of Northern Aggression, along with its activist kangeroo Courts are ganging up to get 'us' again.

[patrice]

7. I think this is true. It also explains Palin's function and those other kooks. They are solidifying

their base and they WILL hold this country hostage to the threat of Civil War II, read that Race War I.

[patrice]

8. There ARE people who look EAGERLY forward to such a prospect.

Maybe we should, cut our losses, subsidize everyone who wants out of there and then just the fuck let the rest of them go . . . ?

[DCBob]

10. Yeah, and they know these suits will fail but they will say it was due to liberal activist judges...

and the Teabaggers will cheer madly.

[depakid]

9. "It would be surprising if the (Supreme Court) says Congress can't regulate..."

"You'd have to imagine that the five conservative Republicans on the Supreme Court will be willing to invalidate the most important piece of social legislation in 50 years on the basis of a highly tendentious and controversial reading of the Constitution."

See Citizen's United v. Federal Elections Commission

Appalling and unlikely? Yes.

Surprising? With this court... no.

[greencharlie]

11. well...

the delicious irony is that a full blown single payer health care system is more constitutionally defensible than the public mandate...

And IF this makes it to the SCOTUS and those 5 "persons" are still there... I give it a 50/50 chance of being shit-canned.

[tledford]

16. What are the lawyers on freerepublic.com telling you? eom

[Beetwasher]

12. Obama, Constitutional Law Professor At Harvard, Too Stupid To Know His Signature HCR Bill

Is unconstitutional. Yeah. That's the ticket.

Seriously, the people making these arguments are demented.

[Cha]

15. And deminted no doubt. nt

[Phx_Dem]

13. That's pretty much the universary legal opinion, except from the RW terroriosts

who don't have a fucking clue anyway.

These whackos must really enjoy losing.

[DCBob]

14. Yeah, the RW terrorists seem have a different opinion..

In fact, I think they want to eliminate anyone who does not agree with them.