Faux News claiming that 12 state AGs will take the HCR legislation to the Supreme Court

[Puzzler]

Any legal experts here want to weigh in on how far this may go (if anywhere)?

[xultar]

1. ...

[Skink]

3. I think the supreme court only has to rule once.

[xultar]

4. true but doing it over and over would be so satifying.

[Arctic Dave]

2. Alaska is one of them "looking into it".

[Cleita]

5. Jonathan Turley has since opined that it won't pass muster in the courts.

But of course that is according to the way the law has been up until now. However, you can't always count on the clout money interests might have in this like the whole corporate insurance industry.

[onenote]

7. I heard turley on the radio tonight saying he thought it would pass muster

either you misheard or he's changed his position.

Here's a link: http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1917298&nid=25

[Cleita]

8. He's changed his position. What I heard was yesterday. n/t

[The Magistrate]

13. No, Ma'am, He Has Not

Here is what he says in the text at that link:

'Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University Law School, tells WTOP there is plenty of precedent to back up Congress.

"In my view, it's really not much different than the government requiring people to buy into say, Social Security." '

Most of what these people say they are complaining about, they have no standing on which to sue. They are not an injured party, and the regulation they do not like does not come into effect for several years. An attempt on some general ground, like 'violating the tenth amendment' is simply frivolous, well off into 'birther' league efforts.

These things are simply political stunts, nothing more.

[Cleita]

14. Thank you. n/t

[vaberella]

6. MSNBC says 9. I heard 38 States yesterday. n/t

[Cleita]

9. Thom Hartmann mentioned 36.

We have the cruelest people in this world.

:cry:

[vaberella]

19. Absolutely evil bastards. n/t

[onenote]

10. before they can get to the SCOTUS, they have to go through a lower court

The SCOTUS has very limited "original jurisdiction" and a state's challenge to the health reform bill would not fall within that jurisdiction. It would only be able to get to the SCOTUS on appeal, which means it could take a while.

[Thrill]

11. Basically all the states with wacko Republican AGs and Governors

.

[firedupdem]

12. Like the one I'm living in..uugh...

The locals news does a story on a lady who was kicked off her plan while she was getting chemo for cancer treatments! The lady shows bottles and bottles of meds she could never pay for herself and they follow up with the AG of Nebraska will sue to overturn the bill. I hate these nuts!

[quiller4]

24. At least in Washington we have a wacko AG but Democratic Governor

[leftygolfer]

15. I say...Bring It on!

Would be extra better to see them beat at ballot box, in Congress and in Courts.

[O is 44]

16. The commerce clause states that,

Fed law supersedes state law when it comes to matters regarding the nation's economy. I remember the Republicans throughout this debate screaming about healthcare being 1/6th of our economy. I do not think this can be overturned as unconstitutional; then again we are dealing with a right wing activist court. I think this is more playing to their base kinda like the repeal thing.

[zulchzulu]

17. War on Kids, the Sick and People Who Might Get Sick

Yeah! PLEASE run against that, Republicans.

Want some more cheese?

[O is 44]

18. Ha, I love the mouse trap. They are so stupid n/t

[WeDidIt]

20. They'd have to overturn more than a century of precedent

No way it'll happen. Overturning the precedent allowing this sort of thing under the commerce clause and the taxation powers of Congress would mean the states have the power to override all federal drug laws.

[Sebastian Doyle]

23. Now there would be a win-win all around.

Get rid of the fucking mandates AND the useless drug laws all at once.

[TeamJordan23]

21. Red States wasting their taxpayer money on frivilous lawsuits. nm

[Aramchek]

22. and they will lose