U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

christiefan915

christiefan915

Catalyst
How many times do judges have to reject Obamacare challenges before the boneheads finally cry "uncle"?

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a broad new legal challenge to President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare law.

The court rejected a petition filed by Liberty University, a Christian college in Virginia, which had raised various objections to the law, including to the key provision that requires individuals to obtain health insurance. The justices upheld the constitutionality of a the individual mandate in a 5-4 ruling in June 2012.

Last week, the court agreed to hear two new cases in which employers have made religious objections to regulations implemented under Obamacare that require employers to provide health insurance that includes contraception for women. The case will be heard this term and decided by the end of June.

By rejecting the Liberty University case, the justices left intact a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of a May 2013 decision that dismissed the claims made by the college and two individuals, Michele Waddell and Joanne Merrill.

The case is Liberty University v. Lew, U.S. Supreme Court, 13-306.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013...csNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&
 
christiefan915 said:
How many times do judges have to reject Obamacare challenges before the boneheads finally cry "uncle"?

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a broad new legal challenge to President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare law.

The court rejected a petition filed by Liberty University, a Christian college in Virginia, which had raised various objections to the law, including to the key provision that requires individuals to obtain health insurance. The justices upheld the constitutionality of a the individual mandate in a 5-4 ruling in June 2012.

Last week, the court agreed to hear two new cases in which employers have made religious objections to regulations implemented under Obamacare that require employers to provide health insurance that includes contraception for women. The case will be heard this term and decided by the end of June.

By rejecting the Liberty University case, the justices left intact a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of a May 2013 decision that dismissed the claims made by the college and two individuals, Michele Waddell and Joanne Merrill.

The case is Liberty University v. Lew, U.S. Supreme Court, 13-306.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013...csNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court was presented an appeal based on a procedural issue from the 4th Circuit, they refused to hear the case. That is the extent of that. Liberty's challenge on on contraception was tossed because of a technicality. Liberties case was too broad to be heard, that was expected.

Their challenge to the mandate was a bad argument, and for the mandate to be properly challenged, it is a good thing the court did not hear is. Liberty can bring another lawsuit after the mandate goes into effect, but there are several other challenges already in the system that have a legitimate argument.

The court had many cased to choose from, and they picked two, one narrow and one broader. Why these two?

But the question is: What is the connection of the lower court's ruling in Liberty University v. Lew regarding the setback it gave Obamacare regarding the lower court's ruling regarding Pruitt v. Sebelius and Halbig v. Sebelius? The two cases Obama is using as a defense of Obamacare, what happened to these in the lower court's ruling?

What did the lower court mean when they took apart Pruitt and Halbig in the same ruling by stating that ruling for Sebelius would cause an "anomalous result?"
 
Asa said:
How is that going to answer the question? You linked to my same post on another forum.
Click to expand...

Were they rhetorical questions? Because I can't answer why the lower courts did what they did.

Frankly, that wasn't the point of my post. I don't see the entire ACA being overturned for any reason, SCOTUS has been pretty clear in the decisions so far.
 
christiefan915 said:
The court rejected a petition filed by Liberty University, a Christian college in Virginia, which had raised various objections to the law, including to the key provision that requires individuals to obtain health insurance. The justices upheld the constitutionality of a the individual mandate in a 5-4 ruling in June 2012...

...the court agreed to hear two new cases in which employers have made religious objections to regulations implemented under Obamacare that require employers to provide health insurance that includes contraception for women. The case will be heard this term and decided by the end of June...
Click to expand...


Was it the individual mandate that was upheld ? MUST a person buy health insurance ? If you refuse to buy health insurance, what happens ?

Are you arrested ? Go to trial ? Go to jail ?

I don't think so, unless I'm missing something....what happens is you get 'fined'....or as the SP calls it, you pay a "TAX".......so in reality, there is no law to requires you to buy
health insurance is there....the law really means, if you don't have health insurance, you will be TAXED.....

Pelosi's comment on the ruling was interesting when asked a question about whether the individual mandate is a tax, calling it a debate over “technical terms” and “Washington talk ... Call it what you want, ..."


What was upheld was the power to tax which happens to be labeled "individual mandate"......kinda misleading if you ask me.....

Roberts said in his statement....


"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
 
christiefan915 said:
Were they rhetorical questions? Because I can't answer why the lower courts did what they did.

Frankly, that wasn't the point of my post. I don't see the entire ACA being overturned for any reason, SCOTUS has been pretty clear in the decisions so far.
Click to expand...

There are two lawsuits that have merit and precedence other then the two 1st Amendment cases the court accepted that are similar to the Liberty case.

The basis of one case is that Obamacare is unconstitutional because it has a tax and originate in the Senate. The other is regarding the subsidies for the federal exchanges, which is not allowed in the plain language reading of the law. The IRS took it upon themselves to legislate the federal subsidy into existence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top