Good News about ObamaCare and more surprise!!!

[nmbluesky]

Obama Administration Scores Legal Victory On Health Care
he 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.

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

Justice Scalia, Eyed As Key Vote In Support Of Health Care
Observers of the legal drama surrounding President Obama's health care reform legislation have reached two broad conclusions: that it will ultimately be ruled on by the Supreme Court, and that Justice Anthony Kennedy will be the deciding vote.

The Supreme Court will, most likely, be the venue that finalizes or submarines the Affordable Care Act. On Thursday, Virginia's attorney general formally requested that the justices bypass an initial appellate review and take up the case on an expedited basis.

But legal scholars and defenders of the bill are increasingly convinced that another court member, not Kennedy, will play the critical role. And the name tantalizingly floated, often in private conversation with health care advocates, is Antonin Scalia.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/justice-scalia-health-care-reform_n_818396.html

[elleng]

1. Sounds good!

'Scalia made what is widely regarded as one of the Court's broadest interpretations of Congress' ability to regulate commerce. Not only did the legislative branch have the "power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce," he wrote; it had the power to extend itself into "those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective."

In the case of Gonzales v Raich, this meant the feds could go after people who were growing bud for home consumption because, while that growth and consumption was decidedly a local issue, the market for illegal drugs crossed state lines. With respect to insurance, it could, theoretically, be extended to mean that Congress can penalize individuals for not buying coverage before they use it because the health care market crosses state lines.

"I think it would be impossible for Scalia to follow his own opinion in Gonzales v. Raich where he said Congress has every power it possibly needs to make sure its other powers work and not uphold the Affordable Care Act," said Ian Millhiser, a policy analyst who specializes in legal issues at the Obama-allied think tank, Center for American Progress.'

[kirby]

2. There was no ruling...

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.

[LeftyAndProud60]

3. And he was appointed by Bush. u would think this would be as big of news as the guy last wk. NT

[onenote]

7. not really. the ruling last week was on the merits. this wasn't

[Orangepeel]

4. Ruling will probably be the most painful for Scalia...

He will be so torn...tunneling lots of money to insurance companies or fucking over a Democratic President... what to do? what to do?

[high density]

6. He's got to side with the corporations... That is longer-lasting than a middle finger to Obama.

After Citizens United vs FEC I don't see how they could possibly rule in a different way.

[Honeycombe8]

8. Scalia's decision is obvious. He will be flat out against the fed forcing people to buy

anything, whether it's forcing them to by making them pay a penalty if they don't, or whether it's straight out telling them they must buy it.

Scalia is all about a small (weak) federal government. He is also a strict, minimalist constructionist about the Constitution (meaning the words say what they say, and not much more), as amended.

Whether that means he'll decide just that provision is unconstitutional, or that the whole bill fails because of it, remains to be seen.

[JTFrog]

5. Affordable Care Act.

FFS.

I cannot stand to see media and others adopting the title coined by racist right wing assholes.

[boppers]

9. Type the word into google.

First paid result I get is:
http://healthcare.gov

If they want american healthcare associated with a specific president, well, let's give them more rope.