Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 10960
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

#26

Post by Chilidog »

Someone has claimed that the judge lacks the authority to strike down the portion of the GOP law that removed the fine,


I'm not sure that is true. any help?

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10551
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

#27

Post by Mikedunford »

I can't think of any possible basis for striking down that part of the law. There's absolutely none that comes to mind at all.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 10960
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

#28

Post by Chilidog »

Mikedunford wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:23 am
I can't think of any possible basis for striking down that part of the law. There's absolutely none that comes to mind at all.
but

If SCOTUS ruled that the ACA with the fine was constitutional,
and this Judge is ruling that the ACA WITHOUT the fine is unconstitutional,

wouldn’t the logical thing to do be to strike down the law that made the ACA unconstitutional?

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 10960
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

#29

Post by Chilidog »

should these threads be merged?

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10551
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

#30

Post by Mikedunford »

Chilidog wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:25 am
Mikedunford wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:23 am
I can't think of any possible basis for striking down that part of the law. There's absolutely none that comes to mind at all.
but

If SCOTUS ruled that the ACA with the fine was constitutional,
and this Judge is ruling that the ACA WITHOUT the fine is unconstitutional,

wouldn’t the logical thing to do be to strike down the law that made the ACA unconstitutional?
On what grounds? I literally can think of none. To my knowledge, "Law X makes Law Y unconstitutional" isn't grounds for striking down Law X. The presumption is that Congress can go back and fix things if they want.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 8392
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

#31

Post by Slim Cognito »

So if congress reinstated a tax penalty of $5 across the board, are we good?
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 10960
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

#32

Post by Chilidog »

Mikedunford wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:07 pm
Chilidog wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:25 am
Mikedunford wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:23 am
I can't think of any possible basis for striking down that part of the law. There's absolutely none that comes to mind at all.
but

If SCOTUS ruled that the ACA with the fine was constitutional,
and this Judge is ruling that the ACA WITHOUT the fine is unconstitutional,

wouldn’t the logical thing to do be to strike down the law that made the ACA unconstitutional?
On what grounds? I literally can think of none. To my knowledge, "Law X makes Law Y unconstitutional" isn't grounds for striking down Law X. The presumption is that Congress can go back and fix things if they want.
If it’s grounds for sticking down law Y, then it should be grounds for sticking down law X as well. If Law X was passed just to make Law Y unconstitutional
then which one should be struck?

Law Y is not unconstitutional. It is law X, when applied to Law Y that fails.

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 28801
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

#33

Post by Volkonski »

What happens now? Will all the people covered under ACA lose their insurance? What about the Medicaid expansion?
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 28801
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

#34

Post by Volkonski »

ABC News

Verified account

@ABC
4m4 minutes ago
More
NEW: The American Medical Association calls a federal judge's ruling that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional a "weak, unprecedented interpretation of 'standing.'"

"If upheld, the consequences of Judge O’Connor’s decision will be staggering." https://abcn.ws/2GrXIZc
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 41210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

#35

Post by Addie »

Medscape

Physicians, Patients Vow to Overturn Ruling Striking Down ACA

Almost as soon as a Texas judge ruled yesterday that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional, proponents of the law — including physicians' organizations, which had filed briefs in support — vowed to appeal the decision.

"Today's decision is an unfortunate step backward for our health system that is contrary to overwhelming public sentiment to preserve pre-existing condition protections and other policies that have extended health insurance coverage to millions of Americans," said Barbara L. McAneny, MD, president of the American Medical Association (AMA), in a statement sent to Medscape Medical News.

The AMA led a coalition — including the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry — in filing an amicus brief in support of the law.

McAneny said the AMA will work with patient advocates and others to pursue an appeal.

"The scope of this order is just so breath-taking," said Timothy S. Jost, professor emeritus at the Washington and Lee University School of Law in Lexington, Virginia, noting that striking the law would have huge repercussions. "I think it's extremely likely this decision will be reversed," Jost told Medscape Medical News.

User avatar
CJ Roberts
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:58 pm
Location: Chicago Sunroofing

Re: Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

#36

Post by CJ Roberts »

O'Connor is a hack and has had several high profile cases because he is easy to judge shop. Just file in Wichita Falls, Texas and he gets the case.

I have had a civil case and a criminal case before him. In the criminal case, he did not give an adequate continuance given the shear volume of recorded materials the government produced after indictment. The case itself was a rocketship. Voir dire, opening arguments, and two witnesses before lunch on day one. Kept us and the jury until 7 p.m. on each day. Heavily tilted towards preserving the government's inherent advantages to the largest extent possible. George W. Bush Library coasters at his bench.
You're the kind of lawyer guilty people hire.

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 28801
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

#37

Post by Volkonski »

ABC News

Verified account

@ABC
1m1 minute ago
More
NEW: Health care stocks are leading major U.S. indexes lower in early trading on Wall Street, after a federal judge ruled that the 2010 Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. https://abcn.ws/2Ch1Qa2
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 41210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

#38

Post by Addie »

Politico
Court allows House Democrats to join Obamacare's defense

A federal appeals court is allowing House Democrats to defend Obamacare in a lawsuit threatening the future of the health care law.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals today granted the House’s petition to intervene in the case challenging Obamacare's constitutionality. The court will review a federal judge's December ruling that the entire health care law is invalid after Congress eliminated the penalty for not having health insurance. ...

The Trump administration refused to defend the law and sided in part with the 20 Republican attorneys general who brought the lawsuit against Obamacare. The administration is asking the courts to strike the law's popular insurance protections for pre-existing conditions while allowing the rest of the law to stand.

More than a dozen Democratic attorneys general have been defending Obamacare in court. The 5th Circuit today approved requests from four states to join Obamacare's defense: Colorado, Iowa, Michigan and Nevada.

The appeals court also refused the blue states' request to expedite the court proceedings. The states asked to hold oral arguments in July, but the court did not say when arguments would be scheduled.

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 10349
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Re: Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

#39

Post by GreatGrey »

Trump & his new AG Barr take direct aim at the ACA



38F907FE-DF5D-45AE-8AFB-113FF10D0402.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 26510
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

#40

Post by RTH10260 »

Obamacare Insurance Mandate Is Struck Down by Federal Appeals Court
But the judges sent the case back to determine if other parts of the federal health care law can stand without the mandate.

By Abby Goodnough
Dec. 18, 2019 Updated 8:05 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Wednesday struck down a central provision of the Affordable Care Act, ruling that the requirement that people have health insurance was unconstitutional.

But the appeals panel did not invalidate the rest of the law, instead sending the case back to a federal district judge in Texas to “conduct a more searching inquiry” into which of the law’s many parts could survive without the mandate.

The 2-1 decision, by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, left the fate of the nearly decade-old health law in limbo even as access to health care has become a central issue in the presidential race. Republicans, for whom a decision to throw out the law heading into the presidential election year could have been a political nightmare, seemed relieved, while Democrats issued a flurry of statements emphasizing that the law was still in grave danger.

The ruling was issued almost exactly a year after Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth struck down the entire law, saying the individual mandate could not be severed from the rest of the Affordable Care Act because it was “the keystone” of the law, essential to its regulation of the health insurance market. With Judge O’Connor now facing an time-consuming assignment from the appellate court, the case is unlikely to be resolved before next year’s presidential election.



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/heal ... ndate.html

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 26510
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Texas et al v. USA; USDC Northern Texas; ACA Constitutionality

#41

Post by RTH10260 »

Supreme Court to Hear Obamacare Appeal
The Affordable Care Act, which has survived two major challenges in the Supreme Court, faces another test.

By Adam Liptak and Abby Goodnough
March 2, 2020 Updated 4:45 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a third major challenge to the Affordable Care Act, setting up likely arguments this fall in a case that could wipe out President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement.

The court granted requests from Democratic state officials and House members who wanted to thrust the fate of the Affordable Care Act into the public eye just as Americans prepare to vote this November. The Supreme Court did not say when it would hear the case, but under its ordinary practices, arguments would be held in the fall and a decision would land in the spring or summer of 2021.

Democrats, who consider health care a winning issue and worry about possible changes in the composition of the Supreme Court, had urged the justices to act quickly even though lower courts had not issued definitive rulings. They wanted to focus political attention on the health law’s most popular provisions — like guaranteed coverage for pre-existing medical conditions, emergency care, prescription drugs and maternity care — and to ensure that the case was decided while justices who had rejected earlier challenges to the law remain on the court.

In the meantime, the law remains almost entirely intact but faces an uncertain future.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/us/s ... ppeal.html

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”