Tea Party Judge's HCR rulling - DISMISSED

BendBrewer

Well-Known Member
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/08/314654/breaking-fourth-circuit-kicks-both-affordable-care-act-cases-on-procedural-grounds/

BREAKING: Fourth Circuit Majority Votes To Uphold The Affordable Care Act | The Fourth Circuit just handed down two opinions ordering that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act, along with another challenge to brought by Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, both must be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. However, Judge Davis dissented from the Liberty University opinion to say that he would reach the merits and uphold the law, and Judge Wynn wrote a separate opinion saying that the law should be upheld as a valid exercise of the Taxing Power. Accordingly a majority of the court voted to uphold the law and today’s opinion should be read as a victory for the Affordable Care Act on the merits.
The Cuccinelli case is the infamous ruling by District Court Judge Henry Hudson. Hudson, also known as "the tea party judge," ruled against the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, arguing that its individual mandate provision was unconstitutional. Today's decision vacates his ruling. From the decision: "we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case to that court to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction."
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Yes, another "stacked" appeals court hands down another predictable ruling. None of this matters until it reaches the SCOTUS. Where it WILL BE found unconstitutional, as it should be. Because we all want future houses of Congress to be able to treat the absence of commerce as commerce. That way they can regulate EVERYTHING. Short sighted statist fools.
 

BendBrewer

Well-Known Member
Yes, another "stacked" appeals court hands down another predictable ruling. None of this matters until it reaches the SCOTUS. Where it WILL BE found unconstitutional, as it should be. Because we all want future houses of Congress to be able to treat the absence of commerce as commerce. That way they can regulate EVERYTHING. Short sighted statist fools.
Well this ruling set back that date with the SC. It's going downhill not up at this point. Now you better go get coverage and stop having others pay your way.
 
Top