General Category > SCOTUS News

Supreme Court Rejects Obamacare Challenge over Standing Issues, 7-2

(1/3) > >>

mystery-ak:
Supreme Court Rejects Obamacare Challenge over Standing Issues, 7-2

Joel B. Pollak17 Jun 202170
3:51

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Obamacare on Thursday in California v. Texas on technical grounds, holding 7-2 that the plaintiffs — some 17 Republican-led states — lacked the standing to bring a suit against the law.

The states wanted the courts to overturn Obamacare, arguing that since the “individual mandate” penalty for not buying health insurance — which the Court, controversially, redefined as a “tax” in 2012 — had been set to zero by President Donald Trump’s tax reforms, the entire law was unconstitutional. Moreover, since the “individual mandate” was integral to the functioning of Obamacare, it could not be severed from the law, and therefore the whole law had to be discarded.

In a majority opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court held:


--- Quote ---The Constitution gives federal courts the power to adjudicate only genuine “Cases” and “Controversies.” Art. III, §2. To have standing, a plaintiff must “allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 342. No plaintiff has shown such an injury “fairly traceable” to the “allegedly unlawful conduct” challenged here.
--- End quote ---

Though the individual mandate is no longer enforceable, the Court held, “Unenforceable statutory language alone is not sufficient to establish standing.”

In a dissent, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch protested against the Court’s apparent bias: “Today’s decision is the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the same pattern as installments one and two. In all three episodes, with the Affordable Care Act facing a serious threat, the Court has pulled off an improbable rescue.”

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/17/supreme-court-rejects-obamacare-challenge-over-standing-issues-7-2/#

Sled Dog:
Yeah, the people of the states being forced to pay a tax if they don't conform doesn't give them standing?   

I'd say it doesn't matter if the tax is temporarily reduced to zero, the core of the case is whether or not the government can force compliance like that, and clearly the Constitution does not permit this.   The Constitution does not even permit the federal government to create a health-care scam in the first place.

I'm surprised at Thomas, and it's damn shame that Barrett doesn't have the balls to stand up for the constitution or that Kavanaugh was beaten into submission by his false accusers.

Bigun:
There's that word again! Can someone show me any case rejected by SCOTUS for lack of "Standing" prior to the 1930s?  Where is it in the U. S. Constitution?

mystery-ak:
Hawley: SCOTUS Decision to Reject Obamacare Challenge ‘Dubious’ — ‘Not Surprised’
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/06/17/hawley-scotus-decision-to-reject-obamacare-challenge-dubious-not-surprised/

Free Vulcan:
Who the hell then does have standing if not the states, representing their citizens?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page