This is actually an intersting perspective, however I surmise that the writer is misplaced on several issues....First, when the riter states that there have been an overwhelming majority of judges who have tossed challenges to the socialized medicine legislation based on Standing; to date, nothing of the sort has happened.
The write is correct in once sense, "Standing" is a major hurdle to overcome, and the Supremes have been known to look harshly on citizens (e.g.; individuals) who bring forth claims that challenge some issue and the premise is what "may" happen; and/or some general purported harm to a class of people or individuals. There are a number of decisions that have ruled accordingly, and been summarily dismissed.
What the writer misses here, is that the plaintiffs are States; representing their citizenry; and in general, claiming that the citizenry of their respective state will be harmed if the law is enacted. This is a much different premise than what the writer is attempting to convey, and he misses the crux of the lawsuit.
In my humble opinion, this law does'nt have a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving, at least in its current form.
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
-- Bush-Appointed Federal Judge Tosses Out Challenge To Health Reform
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment