• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Federal Judge strikes down Affordable Care Act

autumn1971 said:
I very honestly see this as at least negligent homicide. The Republicans are knowingly sentencing tens of thousands of citizens to death in the name of the Party.
Not only have the idle rich declared that the workers don’t matter, they are actively seeking legislation that kills them off.
Click to expand...

I thought it was the ACA that has 'death panels' determining who lives and who dies.:rolleyes:
 
autumn1971 said:
I very honestly see this as at least negligent homicide. The Republicans are knowingly sentencing tens of thousands of citizens to death in the name of the Party.

Not only have the idle rich declared that the workers don’t matter, they are actively seeking legislation that kills them off.
Click to expand...

When I get asked why I hold the views that I do and I don't feel like getting into details, I just say that the Republican party wants me dead. Because without health care, I can't afford insulin or chronic pain medication - and for a while I had to rely on the ACA for medications.

Doesn't always shut the person up, but it does 9 times out of 10. (That last one at this point wishes they were among the other 9.)
 
Polaris said:
When I get asked why I hold the views that I do and I don't feel like getting into details, I just say that the Republican party wants me dead. Because without health care, I can't afford insulin or chronic pain medication - and for a while I had to rely on the ACA for medications.

Doesn't always shut the person up, but it does 9 times out of 10. (That last one at this point wishes they were among the other 9.)
Click to expand...

As I have posted in the past, if pre-existing conditions are not covered I personally could be faced with the choice of dying, or driving my family into bankruptcy. One of the drugs I take that keeps me alive retails at some $240,000 a year. My (very good) current insurance covers it enough that I can afford the co-pay. If I retire or change jobs, and if the rules change...

So I will join you in stating the obvious: the Republican party wants me (and many others dead) and feels so strongly about it they will not give up on pushing that agenda no matter how unpopular or despicable.
 
dudalb said:
I bet the UK isn't much better.
Click to expand...
In this regard it is, if legislation has followed the usual conventions then it becomes by being enacted constitutional since Parliament is supreme in the UK. (That is not to say there aren't challenges to legislation, and whether a law is constitutional it's just that is is much rarer and much harder than under the USA system.)
 
autumn1971 said:
I very honestly see this as at least negligent homicide. The Republicans are knowingly sentencing tens of thousands of citizens to death in the name of the Party.

Not only have the idle rich declared that the workers don’t matter, they are actively seeking legislation that kills them off.
Click to expand...
Polaris said:
When I get asked why I hold the views that I do and I don't feel like getting into details, I just say that the Republican party wants me dead. Because without health care, I can't afford insulin or chronic pain medication - and for a while I had to rely on the ACA for medications.

Doesn't always shut the person up, but it does 9 times out of 10. (That last one at this point wishes they were among the other 9.)
Click to expand...
Giordano said:
As I have posted in the past, if pre-existing conditions are not covered I personally could be faced with the choice of dying, or driving my family into bankruptcy. One of the drugs I take that keeps me alive retails at some $240,000 a year. My (very good) current insurance covers it enough that I can afford the co-pay. If I retire or change jobs, and if the rules change...

So I will join you in stating the obvious: the Republican party wants me (and many others dead) and feels so strongly about it they will not give up on pushing that agenda no matter how unpopular or despicable.
Click to expand...


Bertolt Brecht:
There are many ways to kill. You can stick a knife into one’s belly, take away one’s bread, not heal one from a disease, stick one in a bad apartment, work one to death, drive one to commit suicide, send one off to war, etc. Only a few of these things are forbidden in our country.
Me-Ti, Buch der Wendungen
Click to expand...
 
Health care is now a top campaign issue thanks to this Texad judge.
 
Kestrel said:
Nobody has yet provided an example where failure to include the magic words resulted in an entire complex law being struck down on the basis of one small part of that law.

Rather odd considering how often unconstitutional provisions get slipped into laws at the state level.

A more reasonable explanation is that a Federal judge known for his far right beliefs invented a novel legal theory to get rid of the entire ACA. An action that could result in a Circuit Court nomination by President Trump.
Click to expand...

Well, that's basically what happened here, so...
 
Horatius said:
Wasn't that change made by the Republicans? Am I getting this right? They made it unconstitutional, and are now bragging about, "Hey, we TOLD you that it was unconstitutional!"?
Click to expand...

Yes, all while campaigning on protecting people with pre-existing conditions. Republicans are scumbags. They break government programs and then shout that government programs never work.
 
theprestige said:
As I understand it, this actually depends on how exactly the law is written. Some laws are written in so that their clauses are explicitly separate from each other. In that case, one clause may be struck down without affecting the others. However, if this explicit separation is not spelled out, then the whole law must generally be taken as a single entity, that fails entirely if any part of it fails.

It may also be the case that the clauses of the law must be linked in order for the law to succeed. This is the kind of thing that courts must rule on. Another thing that courts may have to rule on is any custom or precedent that might apply to a specific category of law, where the laws are always assumed to be severable (several?) even when not spelled out.

All of which to say that it's not automatically the case with every law, that striking down one clause doesn't mean striking down the whole law.

I seem to recall some discussion a few years ago about how the ACA omitted the explicit wording that allowed its clauses to be ruled on separately from each other. But I don't have any details and can't vouch for the accuracy of that.
Click to expand...
How many years has it taken to tease this peculiar exegesis from some of the most picked-over legal text of modern times? More than the few since you heard some discussion which went nowhere - or to Texas, which is much the same thing.

Just another ka-ching! day for lawyers in the good ol' US of A.
 
Darat said:
In this regard it is, if legislation has followed the usual conventions then it becomes by being enacted constitutional since Parliament is supreme in the UK. (That is not to say there aren't challenges to legislation, and whether a law is constitutional it's just that is is much rarer and much harder than under the USA system.)
Click to expand...
I personally think that the US's written constitution lies at the root of its lawyer infestation.
 
That diabetics like Polaris die if they don't get insulin?!
 
Last edited:
Kestrel said:
Nobody has yet provided an example where failure to include the magic words resulted in an entire complex law being struck down on the basis of one small part of that law.

Rather odd considering how often unconstitutional provisions get slipped into laws at the state level.

A more reasonable explanation is that a Federal judge known for his far right beliefs invented a novel legal theory to get rid of the entire ACA. An action that could result in a Circuit Court nomination by President Trump.
Click to expand...

First, let me be clear: I'm not going to dig up examples to try to convince you of anything.

Second, no examples are needed, to dissent from an opinion. That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Third, severability is in fact an important legal doctrine in contract law and in constitutional law. This alone satisfies me that we cannot naively assume that the remainder of a law still has effect after one of its clauses has been struck down. That naive assumption was your initial claim, and I don't think counter-examples are necessary to dismiss it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom