# Majority of States Now Challenging Health Care Law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2011, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588 "2011-01-14T14:01:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2011, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/241 "2011-02-05T01:46:04Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You have now posted three successive shots at Shayna without contributing anything relevant to actual discussion of the Court decision. > > Take it to the Pit or drop it. > > [/Moderating] Clarification, please. Is it against to the rules to say that someone is being ruled by partisanship? I’m pretty sure that’s done quite frequently in GD. Something else? Also, on review, it was only two comments. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2011, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/242 "2011-02-05T01:47:10Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > I also found it compelling that the decision rested so heavily on a fundamentalist Christian organization’s ideas. Makes me immediately think, “Activist Judge.” You could have made that point more strongly with [this](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/health/policy/02notebook.html): > [@](#): > > “It is difficult to imagine,” Judge Vinson, of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., wrote in a central passage of his 78-page opinion, “that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.” ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2011, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/243 "2011-02-05T11:13:02Z")
Aha! **Bricker**! I think I found out how the “14-2” meme came about! Those who believe in it are counting dismissals of suits against HCR as “wins” for HCR. (I’m assuming that’s what the columnist mentioned earlier was referring to as well. I can’t say for sure, of course, but it seems to make sense.) Whew, I’m sort of glad I know now. I really was wondering. (Though I can’t really say whether that categorization of the dismissals is proper or not. It really depends on why, doesn’t it?) ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2011, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/244 "2011-02-05T21:34:01Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > No, you are incorrect. What the court thought would be the result of their decision is beside the point. The court ruled that Filburn could be penalized for growing more than X amount of wheat. The end result, that Filburn would have to buy wheat if he wanted more, is a consequence of the decision…not the decison itself. Oh, and being a smart ass doesn’t make one smart. Hence I said it was _dicta_, rather than in the holding. But if you honestly think the opinion of the Court is irrelevant other than the holding, well, then you don’t understand the first thing about the way cases are decided. > [@yorick73](#): > > I’ve read the decision on a number of occassions. Does that impress you? Now, would you like to respond to my point? It would impress me more if you would say anything to refute the quotes that I gave you, and the meaning that is, I believe, pretty transparent in them. And I’ve repeatedly responded to your point. You think this is distinguishable because the mandate requires individuals to purchase something. My response is that the _Wickard_ court specifically noted in its opinion that the law challenged would require people to buy something. You seem to think this is irrelevant. I have no idea why. It isn’t controlling, but it is a pretty strong indicator. And at this point I am willing to make a bet with you - when this case is decided by SCOTUS, at least one of the quotes I pulled from _Wickard_ will be used in the opinion (if the law is upheld) or in a dissent (if it is ruled unconstitutional). > [@yorick73](#): > > Again, _Wickard_ does not force anyone to purchase anything. As I’ve stated, Filburn could have chosen to not purchase any wheat and suffer the consequences. In the current individual mandate case the government is forcing individuals not engaged in commerce with insurance companies into commerce. Big difference. Being involved in commerce with respect to the health care industry is a separate point…I don’t necessarily need insurance to pay for health care. Yes, that is a very narrow reading of _Wickard_. And, as I showed you, clearly not one shared by the Supreme Court when it ruled on the case. And, oddly enough, I place more weight on their opinion than yours in this matter. Or even, shockingly enough, my own. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2011, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/245 "2011-02-06T02:21:40Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Hence I said it was _dicta_, rather than in the holding. But if you honestly think the opinion of the Court is irrelevant other than the holding, well, then you don’t understand the first thing about the way cases are decided. You see…that wasn’t so hard to admit. Now we are getting somewhere. The court’s tortured logic in Wickard, while important to understand how they came to their decision, is nonetheless not legally binding and can be ignored by other courts. I thought you wanted to have a “genuine **legal** discussion of _Wickard_” That being said, the mistake that both you and **Bricker** make is confusing the insurance company for the individual. In _Wickard_ the individual subject to regulation was the one producing a product. By withholding that product from the market he, in theory, affected interstate commerce. With respect to the individual mandate the insurance company makes the “product” and is regulated. The individual can choose to purchase this product or not purchase it. As I’ve stated, a good comparison would be if the court demanded that individuals purchase wheat in order to affect price. You are merely thinking in the wrong direction. > [@villa](#): > > It would impress me more if you would say anything to refute the quotes that I gave you, and the meaning that is, I believe, pretty transparent in them. > > And I’ve repeatedly responded to your point. You think this is distinguishable because the mandate requires individuals to purchase something. My response is that the _Wickard_ court specifically noted in its opinion that the law challenged would require people to buy something. You seem to think this is irrelevant. I have no idea why. It isn’t controlling, but it is a pretty strong indicator. > > And at this point I am willing to make a bet with you - when this case is decided by SCOTUS, at least one of the quotes I pulled from _Wickard_ will be used in the opinion (if the law is upheld) or in a dissent (if it is ruled unconstitutional). Again, the quotes have no legal effect. And, you still have not responded to my point. I’ve pointed your problem out again in my comment above. The court did not mandate that anyone purchase anything and, as much as you wish to argue otherwise, you know this to be true. Think about it this way. In _Wickard_ the court ruled that Filburn could not withhold his wheat from the market. The end result is that, if Filburn wished to feed his chickens, he would need to purchase wheat. Okay. The court did not mandate that Filburn **must** purchase wheat. Now, if congress mandated that direct payments cannot be made to hospitals or doctors, then the result is that we would need to buy insurance in order to interact with the health care industry. But, we would not be forced to purchase insurance. You, as an individual have the choice not to interact with the health care industry. > [@villa](#): > > Yes, that is a very narrow reading of _Wickard_. And, as I showed you, clearly not one shared by the Supreme Court when it ruled on the case. And, oddly enough, I place more weight on their opinion than yours in this matter. Or even, shockingly enough, my own. We both know that _Wickard_ was poorly decided. FDR expanded federal power greatly under the commerce clause by threatening the court. This really explains the tortured logic in the decision and the recent trend in undoing some of the damage. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2011, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/246 "2011-02-06T09:57:17Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Again, the quotes have no legal effect. I wrote out an entire answer and deleted it, because your error comes down to this one completely, utterly ridiculous statement. To claim _dicta_ has no legal effect shows a total absence of understanding of the US judicial system. _Dicta_ does not **control** , but it absolutely has an **effect**. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2011, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/247 "2011-02-06T17:09:45Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I wrote out an entire answer and deleted it, because your error comes down to this one completely, utterly ridiculous statement. To claim _dicta_ has no legal effect shows a total absence of understanding of the US judicial system. _Dicta_ does not **control** , but it absolutely has an **effect**. You should have quoted my first statement rather than the one you did. I’m sure you had a great rebuttal all typed up. I guess it’s my loss for making this completely, utterly ridiculous statement. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2011, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/248 "2011-02-06T18:01:56Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Aha! **Bricker**! I think I found out how the “14-2” meme came about! Those who believe in it are counting dismissals of suits against HCR as “wins” for HCR. (I’m assuming that’s what the columnist mentioned earlier was referring to as well. I can’t say for sure, of course, but it seems to make sense.) > > Whew, I’m sort of glad I know now. I really was wondering. (Though I can’t really say whether that categorization of the dismissals is proper or not. It really depends on why, doesn’t it?) Without being aware of the specifics, I’d say it’s entirely dependent on the reason for the dismissals. A suit dismissed on standing grounds, for examples, is utterly meaningless to the underlying issue, and cannot be counted by anyone as indicia that more judges feel the law is constitutional than do not. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2011, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/249 "2011-02-07T15:01:36Z")
Well, not necessarily. If the states don’t have standing, then they underlying issue is itself meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2011, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/250 "2011-02-07T15:19:18Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, not necessarily. If the states don’t have standing, then they underlying issue is itself meaningless. Good point. Have all (or any) of the dismissals been with a states or states as the plaintiffs? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2011, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/251 "2011-02-07T15:41:46Z")
No idea. I can’t find the column that **Leaper** alluded to, but I had assumed it only referred to the state suits. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2011, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/252 "2011-02-07T15:46:42Z")
I’m guessing that it doesn’t, because the states are not all suing individually, but are all parties to a single suit. Virginia and Michigan were suing separately. The suits that were dismissed were, I think, all similar to one in Mississippi, where there were ten plaintiffs, all individuals who do not have health insurance and do not intend to purchase it in the future who said they were harmed now by the law. But since they weren’t (yet) they had no standing. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2011, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/253 "2011-02-07T15:58:00Z")
The Thomas More Center’s suit in Michigan was [dismissed on substantive grounds](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Federal_Court_rulings), as was [the Liberty University one in Virginia](http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Judge-Moon-ruling-on-health-care-11-30-10.pdf). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/254 "2011-02-07T16:15:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The Thomas More Center’s suit in Michigan was [dismissed on substantive grounds](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Federal_Court_rulings), as was [the Liberty University one in Virginia](http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Judge-Moon-ruling-on-health-care-11-30-10.pdf). Those were the two I was crediting to the “upheld” side. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2011, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/255 "2011-02-07T16:18:05Z")
Are the 14 pro-HCR rulings you were talking about final orders, or were some just denials of summary judgment against? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/256 "2011-02-07T16:35:24Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Are the 14 pro-HCR rulings you were talking about final orders, or were some just denials of summary judgment against? I have no idea what or where that 14 figure came from. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/257 "2011-06-29T18:03:13Z")
[Federal appeals court upholds Obamacare, individual mandate](http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/29/federal-appeals-court-panel-upholds-obamacare-against-lawsuit/). > [@](#): > > The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the individual mandate contained in the 2010 health care law on a 2-1 vote. The ruling claims Congress has the power to force individuals to buy health insurance under its authority to regulate interstate commerce — the main argument the Obama administration has been using to defend the law against the multiple lawsuits organizations, lawmakers and states have filed. > > “We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause,” the court wrote. And another one bites the dust. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/258 "2011-06-29T18:35:09Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > [Federal appeals court upholds Obamacare, individual mandate](http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/29/federal-appeals-court-panel-upholds-obamacare-against-lawsuit/).And another one bites the dust. Yup. Although: > [@](#): > > A federal appeals court upheld the Obamacare health care law that pro-life groups opposed because of abortion funding and rationing concerns, though the lawsuit is not either of the two premier lawsuits filed by Florida, Virginia and other states. I have a pretty good feeling that the Fourth Circuit will reach a different conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/259 "2011-07-01T03:32:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yup. > > Although: > > I have a pretty good feeling that the Fourth Circuit will reach a different conclusion. Do you have a link for your final statement? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/260 "2011-07-01T03:44:46Z")
Magical though the internet may be, it is my understanding that hyperlinking to **Bricker’s** thoughts remains beyond our technology. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588.md?page=12)