Friday, October 08, 2010

Round #2 :Federal court upholds Obamacare

"In a 20-page decision, U.S. District Judge George Steeh refused to issue an injunction to halt preparations for putting federal health reforms into full effect in 2014, a law known as the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in March. Steeh also dismissed the major points of the suit — requiring Americans to buy health insurance and penalizing those who don’t starting in 2014."
Before applauding or berating the opinion, I thought I'd read it first.

I need to confess I haven't read the entire order, but the plaintiffs seemed to clearly miss establishing their standing.  The fact they may have to arrange their financial affairs differently three years from now doesn't excite me either, but I understand where they're coming from.  I'm glad they're planning ahead.  More of us should follow their example.

But it made me wonder: regardless whether Obamacare exceeds constitutional authority, by passing laws that go into affect in the future it is difficult to impede their enactment since until they hurt someone no one has standing to bring a case against the law.

Let me put that in simpler terms for recent college graduates--you're not hurt until you're hurt.

In the court's opinion, if your child is tied to railroad tracks they don't have standing to stop the train.

I think this is brilliant.  Congress should pass all unpopular and potentially unconstitutional laws this way.  No one can stop their passing or implementation because until folks have been victimized there are no victims, no plaintiffs, and no one "with standing." 

Of course, the judge's reasoning would also eliminate criminal conspiracy--since no one was harmed.  It may also prohibit the apprehension of terrorists since until the plane blows up, no one is actually hurt.

As long as the missile is climbing or hasn't entered US airspace there's no eminent threat.

I know, I know.  The judge's order blushed that "standing" is influenced by the immediacy of the threat.  But immediacy is both ambiguous and subjective.  If I'm planning ahead, three years from now is nearly a present danger.  If I don't plan ahead then three years from now is, well, three years from now.


  1. Excellent points.

    Its nice to find another great conservative Michigan blog.

  2. You confess you have not read it all, but are going to write about it nonetheless? Everything that follows that statement is unbelievable to anyone using their rational mind.

  3. I have read the whole thing, and will assume you have as well.

    You'll have to do better than ".. anyone using their rational mind," since not everyone agrees on what is or is not rational (ask an arguing couple). And as your own sentence states, it's "their rational mind" and who knows what nonsense could be floating inside it?

  4. Just took your link to Froma Harrop. Like water in the desert.