Mississippi Judge Dismisses Reform Bill Challenge
Funny, after the media frenzy only a few days ago when Judge Vinson declared the health reform bill unconstitutional, there's been barely any buzz about this Mississippi judge throwing out a challenge lawsuit.
Granted it's not quite as significant a ruling, since he dismissed the case for failure to establish standing and is giving the plaintiff's 30 days to amend their complaint, but I suspect this has more to do with the story failing to support the GOP talking points. Also, interestingly the judge was appointed by George W. Bush in 2004, so it doesn't fit the usual media narrative.
Still, I'm surprised that more lefty bloggers didn't push this story. And for those keeping count at home we're now 3 to 2 in favor of the law.
Granted it's not quite as significant a ruling, since he dismissed the case for failure to establish standing and is giving the plaintiff's 30 days to amend their complaint, but I suspect this has more to do with the story failing to support the GOP talking points. Also, interestingly the judge was appointed by George W. Bush in 2004, so it doesn't fit the usual media narrative.
Still, I'm surprised that more lefty bloggers didn't push this story. And for those keeping count at home we're now 3 to 2 in favor of the law.
Labels: health care, Justice, rule of law
posted by Libby Spencer at 11:55 AM
5 Comments:
So what? He didn't rule on the constitionality of the case. As an alleged "legal office manager," one would think you'd understand the difference. Then again, I'm not surprised that you don't understand the difference.
Finally tipped your hand "Jerry." Or should I say Luddy?
Oh, Jerry tips a lot of things.
Libby Spencer "In sharp contrast to the uproar caused only days ago when the rightwing judge ruled against the health care reform bill, yesterday's news that a Mississippi judge threw out a challenge lawsuit against the law, barely made a ripple in the news cycle."
Perhaps its because the 3 rulings you support only affected 3 States, and the rulings against ObamaCare involved 27 States?
Not all rulings are equivalent relative to the number of people affected.
At the end of the day none of this really matters..ObamaCare is going to the SCOTUS, and they will make the final determination
Let's hope it's a decision based on the law and not on politics -- but I don't have much hope. Even the weather is politics now. Science, history, even morality -- they all stink of it.
I'm interested to know however, just how many people support the repeal and of those who do just how many actually know what it does or what it costs. Polls seem mostly to reflect the phrasing of the questions. Of those who prefer another approach, how many prefer the approach favored up until now by the GOP: malpractice caps.
As I read it, Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan is rather similar to your rather dismissive "Obamacare." I'm wondering why we don't have to call it Romneycare and why it isn't also unconstitutional, but maybe there's some difference.
As I said to my Representative, Mr. Rooney last week, if it's not unconstitutional to make me pay for all the indigents filling the emergency rooms through higher medical costs and premiums, why then is it illegal to require that citizens take responsibility to keep from being a burden on the public?
I'm still awaiting an answer. I'm hoping it's not "well they don't have to go to the hospital, they can just die and decrease the surplus population."
Post a Comment
<< Home