# Appeals Court Strikes Down the Individual Mandate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 12, 2011, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508 "2011-08-12T21:01:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/61 "2011-09-08T22:10:52Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > If they do not have the legal right to sue who does? Every adult in the US. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/62 "2011-09-08T22:17:14Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > If they do not have the legal right to sue who does? “The individual citizens who will be affected”. Apparently, “the individual citizens who will be affected” do not vote in the state’s government. > [@Jas09](#): > > It would have been overturned on the merits as well, at least 2-to-1. Not quite. They ruled that the insurance-mandate penalties are a “tax”, and as a result they can’t be appealed until after they’re collected. Again, a “punt”. Adding in “Oh, well I would have ruled \ way” after the fact is a cop-out. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/63 "2011-09-08T22:20:15Z")
This thing is going to land on the doorstep of the SCOTUS. The sooner the better so we can settle this once and for all. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/64 "2011-09-08T22:27:25Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Not quite. They ruled that the insurance-mandate penalties are a “tax”, and as a result they can’t be appealed until after they’re collected. Again, a “punt”. Adding in “Oh, well I would have ruled \ way” after the fact is a cop-out. Yes, I know how they ruled. However, if all 3 of us say “you lose because you have no standing” and 2 of us also say “however, if you had standing, you still lose”… surely this means that you lose, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/65 "2011-09-09T00:57:26Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Yes, I know how they ruled. > > However, if all 3 of us say “you lose because you have no standing” and 2 of us also say “however, if you had standing, you still lose”… surely this means that you lose, right? But that’s not what they said. “You lose because you have no standing, ever,” and “You would still have lost because no one will get standing until they pay the tax,” are the two operative phrases. No one said, “You would still lose if you had paid the tax.” And for the record: I believe the law is constitutional, and the correct decision is, in fact, “You would still lose if you had paid the tax.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2011, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508/66 "2011-09-10T00:51:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No one said, “You would still lose if you had paid the tax.” [Really?](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/09/09/appeals_panel_tosses_out_cases_dealing_with_health_care_overhaul/) > [@](#): > > In the process, however, two of the three judges on the panel volunteered that they would have upheld the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, if they had been able to rule on the substance of the cases. IOW, yes, your guy Cooch and his fellow government-haters lose comprehensively. It’s really quite, um, remarkable to see the Nullification Doctrine brought back out of the history books where it’s been hiding since before the Civil War. That’s what your Federalist Society ideology has brought us to now - actually having to adjudicate that silliness once again. The plaintiffs, and their supporters such as yourself, might as well done this while donning frock coats and dipping snuff, with the colored servants bringing in fresh glasses of port, while you condemn the perfidy of the Whigs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appeals-court-strikes-down-the-individual-mandate/592508.md?page=3)