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.
You could have made that point more strongly with this:
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?)
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
No idea. I can’t find the column that Leaper alluded to, but I had assumed it only referred to the state suits.
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.
The Thomas More Center’s suit in Michigan was dismissed on substantive grounds, as was the Liberty University one in Virginia.
Those were the two I was crediting to the “upheld” side.
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.
Federal appeals court upholds Obamacare, individual mandate.
And another one bites the dust.
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?
Magical though the internet may be, it is my understanding that hyperlinking to Bricker’s thoughts remains beyond our technology.