A federal judge on Thursday sided with the Obama administration on the sweeping health care reform law, throwing out a challenge to its constitutionality.
Keith Starrett, a George W. Bush- appointed US District Court judge in southern Mississippi, said opponents of the individual mandate had offered "insufficient" basis to challenge the government's ability to regulate health insurance coverage.
The 23-page decision, obtained by the Huffington Post's Sam Stein, read: "The Court finds that the allegations of Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition, as stated therein, are insufficient to show that they have standing to challenge the minimum essential coverage provision of the PPACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]. Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition without prejudice."
It concluded, "the Court finds that the ten primary Plaintiffs have not plead sufficient facts to establish that they have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of the minimum essential coverage provision of the PPACA."
The lawsuit was filed by Mississippi Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant and 10 other state residents, according to the Hattiesburg American, who argued that the law would grant Congress "unlimited power to regulate, prohibit, or mandate any or all activities in the United States."
Starrett offered them 30 days to amend their complaint.
Judge Starrett found that Mississippi didn't even have standing to sue. Once again, this law will be decided by the Supreme Court, but looking at the dozens of cases filed by the states against the PPACA, only two have come out against the government, one against the mandate, one against the entire law.
The rest have been thrown out across the board.
Something to keep in mind.
Republicans are quick to take Florida Judge Roger Vinson's ruling that the entire health care bill is unconstitutional as cold hard fact, but that ignores the over a dozen federal judges -- some appointed by Republicans -- that have tossed lawsuits against the bill based on the Supremacy and Commerce Clauses in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteImmaterial. It's not like counting votes. Plus, while Starrett did deny standing, but without prejudice, meaning it can be refiled. Lastly, because he said plaintiffs had no standing, he never did rule on the merits.