Every aspect of the HCR bill will face court challenge, and that's okay.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

The Republicans are ridiculous assholes and do not seek the best interests of the nation or her people and their court challenges are an offensive stunt.

But, that said, does anyone think that any provision of any major legislation goes unchallenged?

In practice it is all challenged by somebody, somewhere.

And that is not even a bad thing. You don't like a bill so you go to court to see whether maybe the thing is unconstitutional. You can make any argument you want but ultimately you are asking a question of the court... is this constitutional?

And since there is always someone who doesn't like any given bill that question tends to be asked. (And if the court gives a bad answer the fault is with the court, not the petitioner.)

Congress can pass legislation but congress cannot say definitively whether something is constitutionally permitted or even what the law they just passed means.

The judiciary is preeminent in interpretation of law. (It is presumed that congress has nothing further to say on the topic because if they had something to say they would have put it in the bill.) So in addition to constitutional challenges it is not extraordinary for courts to be asked what a new law means. And since our system is adversarial the courts only say what laws mean in the context of challenges. (They are not supposed to volunteer interpretation.)

Since all major legislation is challenged in court one way or another it may be kinder for the bill to face first (and precedent setting) challenge from Liberty Baptist Law School educated state-level wing-nuts rather than from corporations who actually know what they're doing.

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. But not hard enough, apparently

:hi:

[lunatica]

3. When I heard it was being challenged it made me glad

I like that about this country. Things can be challenged. Last night I heard one of the major challenges is whether it's constitutional to mandate the purchase of health insurance. I'm glad that's being challenged. It would be great if that part were taken out.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. My favorite organization, the ACLU, is primarily about taking things to court

The courts are often flawed (!) but in our system they are an indispensable part of the system.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. PS: The fact that laws are interpreted based on the law...

...and that courts give only minor weight to what legislators *thought* they were trying to say is connected to the whole "nation of laws, not me" thing.

Once enacted a law has a life of its own. The law is the law even if everyone who voted for the law died the next day.

This leads to funny decisions (usually on the state level) where the judge says, "I know what you were trying to say but you didn't. I hope you will change the law because the way it is now means x and NOBODY wants x."