Judge dismisses Miss. lawsuit against Obamacare

[cal04]

Source: Hattiesburgamerican

A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit in which Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant and others sought to have the health care reform law overturned.

U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett, in a 23-page decision, said Bryant and the other plaintiffs did not have standing to file the lawsuit.

However, Starrett, who sits on the federal bench in Hattiesburg, gave Bryant and the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their lawsuit.

(snip)
Starrett said the plaintiffs did not provide evidence of imminent injury from the law.

Read more: http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/article/20110203/NEWS01/110203027/Judge-dismisses-Miss-lawsuit-against-Obamacare

[Drunken Irishman]

1. I know not your headline...but damn, I hate the term Obamacare...

[LuvNewcastle]

2. Me too.

It says the bill is "commonly known as Obamacare." Really, by whom? I can't wait for all those right-wing newspapers to go out of business.

[armodem08]

4. Right? They're basically using it as a slur now...

It's all just "Obamacare" and lots of negative reinforcement like the words kill or tyranny every time they use it. It can't be long until some wacko decides to chop off the last four letters of "kill Obamacare" and we have a real problem...

[trud]

5. I like the term Obamacare

and when people say gosh my kids have insurance, or gosh I'm only paying half for my meds in the donut hole, I plan to say, that's Obamacare for you.

[moonchild420]

9. wonderful point

[moonchild420]

8. Drives me nuts.........

I cant stand it either. I talked to conservatives everyday and I make it a point to call it Affordable Heath-care Act. As long as they use that term I use Tea baggers...

[Jansen]

26. +1 despise that term

though it is a convenient tell as to where someone stands on the issue if they use it. Though one could say the same of many terms that are offensive/slurs.

[TheEuclideanOne]

3. Is this the same ruling that Rushbo and others have been talking about endlessly

They are all giddy that some judge ruled it unconstitutional and want to arrest Obama. I was wondering if this is the same ruling.

[former9thward]

6. No. Different case. Different state.

[gratuitous]

7. Different case

Oh, and don't hold your breath waiting for the same type of coverage that you saw on the Judge Vinson ruling. Steve Benen at Washington Monthly has the depressing details:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/027790.php

In a nutshell, coverage for decisions invalidating some or all of the Affordable Care Act is wall-to-wall and lasts for a long time. Coverage for decisions that validate the Act slip through practically unnoticed. That darn librul media strikes again!

[kpete]

10. Obama Administration Scores Legal Victory On Health Care

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration won a victory Thursday in the winding legal debate surrounding the president's signature health care law, as a federal judge in Mississippi threw out a suit challenging the constitutionality of the bill.

The judge, Keith Starret, who serves on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, ruled that plaintiffs suing over the coming implementation of the individual mandate did not demonstrate sufficient standing for him to take the case. He "granted in part" the administrations motion to dismiss the case, but gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint.

"The Court finds that the allegations of Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition, as stated therein, are insufficient to show that they have standing to challenge the minimum essential coverage provision of the PPACA . Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition without prejudice."

The ruling is welcome news for the president, who earlier this week suffered a legal setback when a federal judge in Florida called the individual mandate unconstitutional and ruled that as such, the entire health care law was void.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/obama-health-care-legal-victory_n_818428.html

[loudsue]

11. I do not welcome this ruling. The mandate should never have been a part of the bill,

and THAT is the part that is being challenged. I for one will see hell freeze over before I'll have my government forcing me to buy insurance. I already have insurance, but the government has no right to force me to buy it.

[Myrina]

12. Indeed.

:applause:

[democrat_patriot]

14. No one is forcing you to buy insurance.

If you don't have insurance, you will be assessed a tax, so that the rest of us don't have to foot the bill when you wait to get coverage after your ill. Or go to the emergency room uninsured, which the rest of us will pay for.

Without everyone in it, it will cost too much.

So keep the mandate, or go back to 2009.

[barbiegeek]

15. Thanks! Now I get it

[David__77]

23. Except it's not a tax - it's a penalty.

There is a distinction that is legally important.

[loudsue]

25. Without everyone in it it will cost too much??? FOR WHOM?

This is a giveaway TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES...NOT to people!!!! Who pays?? What we need is the whole price of medical care to be paid for and REGULATED by the government.

[BenzoDia]

16. It's a tax that you opt out of by having insurance.

It's not unlike other systems around the world that are considered more progressive than ours. Social assistance and subsidies for those that have lower incomes, buy-your-own if you're making more, a tax penalty if you don't have it.

You're not being forced.

[starzdust]

22. Those who have the means

will buy their own insurance whether or not this law goes into full effect.

What gets my blood pressure to rise is that a multimillionaire like Senator McCain, and others like him, take social security and other benefits for 65 and older Americans when they don't need it. I don't buy the crap that the rich and super rich spout about that since they paid taxes into social benefits their entitled to benefits.

First of all they do not pay taxes above a certain amount of income (what is it, around $100,000 (?)).

Secondly multimillionaires usually have accountants and lawyers that can hide most of their money in trust accounts, overseas investments, properties they own, etc. Why do McCain's need 11 homes? I mean, really, you can only live in them one at a time. What's McCain afraid off? Cindy leaving him and taking with all her millions of dollars and investments with her?

I'm just saying...

[savalez]

21. You said "I already have Insurance" and that says it all.

The part of the bill that you do not like was not meant for you. It was meant for those who do NOT have insurance and ultimately cost the rest of us money. I bet if lost your insurance right now you would seek out another plan immediately regardless of the tax ramifications or the threat of hell freezing over. This too will soon be an easier process when the forthcoming exchanges kick in.

[JTFrog]

13. Excellent. K&R

[former9thward]

17. This was not a legal victory for the HCR bill.

The judge dismissed the suit for reasons of standing (the right of the plaintiffs to bring suit). He did not rule on the merits at all. He dismissed the suit "without prejudice" which means the plaintiffs can refile the suit after they properly amend it.

[108]

18. why aren't any of these libertarian teabaggers trying to

questions the validity of lets say The Patriot Act?

[VWolf]

19. Because

the Patriot Act was rammed through congress by white republicans.

But I think you already know that.

[kirby]

20. Unrec for misinformation...

This was not a ruling at all.

The court just said those particular plaintiffs did not have 'standing' to bring a suit challenging the constitutionality. No ruling on the constitutionality was rendered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi because they refused to hear the case.

Not to mention, a dup from yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=605638&mesg_id=605638

[russspeakeasy]

24. This is how we define victory ???