Judge rules Little Rock bus line wrong to deny atheist ads
Thu, Aug 11 2011

By Suzi Parker

LITTLE ROCK, Ark (Reuters) - A federal judge ruled on Thursday that the
free speech of a coalition of atheists had been violated when Little
Rock's public bus line denied them the right to place $5,000 worth of
ads on city buses.

Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled that the Central Arkansas Transit
Authority and its advertising agency should not have denied the group
the right to place the ads on 18 publicly-funded city buses during
Memorial Day weekend.

Washington-based United Coalition of Reason filed a lawsuit on behalf of
the Arkansas group in June after the transit authority and its
advertising agency rejected an ad that would have read, "Are you good
without God? Millions are."

"This was a victory for all of us whether you believe in God or not,
because it's a victory of free speech," United Coalition of Reason's
attorney J.G. Schultz told Reuters.

The transit authority and its advertising agency, On The Move
Advertising, had required payment of a $36,000 deposit to run the ad.
The group then changed that to a $3 million insurance policy in case of
bus vandalism by angry Christians.

**...bus vandalism by angry Christians..." (Gotta love *that*.


Webber Wright ruled that the United Coalition of Reason would need to
place a $15,000 bond to be filed with the court in case of any damage
that may occur to a bus.

Schultz said the group had initially offered a $10,000 deposit before
any lawyers got involved.

"It wasn't because we thought it was okay but rather because we wanted
to get these ads on during Riverfest so we were willing to do a little
more," Schultz said, referring to a Little Rock music and art festival.

Attorneys for the Central Arkansas Transit Authority or On The Move
could not be immediately reached for comment.

Out of 36 markets where ad campaigns have run, only four have seen
vandalism, according to UnitedCoR's website. Last year, UnitedCoR placed
ads on outdoor billboards and buses in Fayetteville, Arkansas, without
incident.

In 2009, the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers, a group of atheists who
are also involved in the bus ad campaign, successfully sued the state of
Arkansas to erect a Winter Solstice display on the grounds of the State
Capitol near a nativity scene.

"The freethinkers have been out in the open here in Arkansas without any
incident," said LeeWood Thomas, a spokesman for the Arkansas Society of
Freethinkers.

Thomas said the group would now refocus the bus campaigns on bus routes
near the city's colleges.
--
Don't forget to leave a bit of beef for rec.boat's right-wing
conservatrashers and ID spoofers to feed upon. The more they feed, the
quicker rec.boats will fall into the black hole of cyberspace and disappear.

Speaking of good court decisions, Herr Krause. It is comforting to
know that there are a few jurists that follow your Constitutional
guidelines.
And one cut and paste deserves another, eh?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5180930.story

By David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau

August 13, 2011
Reporting from Washington—

A federal appeals court struck down a pillar of President Obama's
national healthcare law, ruling Congress does not have the power to
require all Americans to buy insurance and setting the stage for a
Supreme Court decision ahead of the 2012 election.

The 2-1 decision is a victory for Republican leaders in 26 states who
challenged the law last year, testing whether the signature
accomplishment of Obama's presidency would stand.

The Atlanta-based judges echoed the complaint that the mandate
represents an "unprecedented" expansion of federal power.

"The individual mandate is breathtaking in its expansive scope," two
judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in their 207-page
majority opinion.

Even during the Great Depression or World War II, "Congress never
sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher
savings rate or greater consumption of American goods," they observed.
Though Congress may regulate those who buy insurance, it may not
regulate those who "have not entered the insurance market and have no
intention of doing so," they said.

Conversely, other judges have upheld the law. In June, the Obama
administration prevailed before the federal appellate court in
Cincinnati, which in a split opinion ruled that the mandate
represented a constitutional exercise of Congress' authority to
regulate commerce.

About 50 million Americans lack basic health insurance. As a result,
hospitals and taxpayers are forced to pay about $43 billion a year to
cover the costs of those who are treated but cannot pay.

Many healthcare experts believe an insurance mandate is crucial not
only to controlling this cost shift but also to guaranteeing that all
Americans can get insurance, a right provided by the law. Without such
a requirement, they argue, consumers would be able to wait until they
were sick to buy insurance. That in turn would push up premiums.

However, the mandate galvanized GOP opposition to the law and helped
fuel the "tea party" movement.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the ruling "only
strengthens and adds more momentum to the efforts of those of us who
are working to repeal."

The White House, meanwhile, minimized the opinion, citing the divided
rulings by multiple federal courts around the country.

"Today's ruling is one of many decisions on the Affordable Care Act
that we will see in the weeks and months ahead," Obama aide Stephanie
Cutter wrote in a blog posting.

The ruling was not a total victory for the challengers. The appeals
court rejected the states' claim that Congress went too far by
expanding the Medicaid program for low-income Americans. The judges
also agreed the rest of the healthcare law could stand, even if the
insurance mandate is struck down.

The Atlanta-based court has a conservative reputation and had been
seen as the best forum for those challenging the law. The majority was
made up of Chief Judge Joel Dubina, an appointee of President George
H.W. Bush, and Judge Frank Hull, a female appointee of President
Clinton. The dissenter, Judge Stanley Marcus, was also a Clinton
appointee.

In dissent, Marcus said judges have a duty to act with "caution,
restraint and great humility" and uphold the laws enacted by the
elected representatives.

"At bottom, Congress rationally concluded that the uninsured's
consumption of healthcare services shifts enormous costs unto others …
and the individual mandate directly addresses this cost-shifting
problem," said Marcus in dissent.

The administration can appeal Friday's decision directly to the
Supreme Court. If an appeal petition is filed in the fall, the
justices are likely to hear the case early next year and rule by late
June.

Striking down the mandate could have dramatic consequences if
insurance premiums surge, as many experts fear.

That could put more pressure on the federal treasury because millions
of Americans are expected to qualify for federal subsidies starting in
2014 to help them buy insurance.

Ballooning subsidy costs could increase pressure to cut back other
healthcare initiatives in the law, including the expansion of state
Medicaid programs for low-income Americans.

Eliminating the mandate would probably have less impact on other parts
of the healthcare overhaul, including portions of the law designed to
make Medicare more efficient and to improve the quality of care that
hospitals and doctors provide.

In another ruling Friday, three judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals rejected a challenge to the insurance mandate brought by
former state legislator Steven Baldwin and the Pacific Justice
Institute, ruling they had no standing to sue.





Times staff writer Carol J. Williams in Los Angeles contributed to
this report.

On 12/08/2011 8:15 PM, TopBassDog wrote:
Speaking of good court decisions, Herr Krause. It is comforting to
know that there are a few jurists that follow your Constitutional
guidelines.
And one cut and paste deserves another, eh?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5180930.story

By David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau

August 13, 2011
Reporting from Washington—

A federal appeals court struck down a pillar of President Obama's
national healthcare law, ruling Congress does not have the power to
require all Americans to buy insurance and setting the stage for a
Supreme Court decision ahead of the 2012 election.

The 2-1 decision is a victory for Republican leaders in 26 states who
challenged the law last year, testing whether the signature
accomplishment of Obama's presidency would stand.

The Atlanta-based judges echoed the complaint that the mandate
represents an "unprecedented" expansion of federal power.

"The individual mandate is breathtaking in its expansive scope," two
judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in their 207-page
majority opinion.

Even during the Great Depression or World War II, "Congress never
sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher
savings rate or greater consumption of American goods," they observed.
Though Congress may regulate those who buy insurance, it may not
regulate those who "have not entered the insurance market and have no
intention of doing so," they said.

Conversely, other judges have upheld the law. In June, the Obama
administration prevailed before the federal appellate court in
Cincinnati, which in a split opinion ruled that the mandate
represented a constitutional exercise of Congress' authority to
regulate commerce.

About 50 million Americans lack basic health insurance. As a result,
hospitals and taxpayers are forced to pay about $43 billion a year to
cover the costs of those who are treated but cannot pay.

Many healthcare experts believe an insurance mandate is crucial not
only to controlling this cost shift but also to guaranteeing that all
Americans can get insurance, a right provided by the law. Without such
a requirement, they argue, consumers would be able to wait until they
were sick to buy insurance. That in turn would push up premiums.

However, the mandate galvanized GOP opposition to the law and helped
fuel the "tea party" movement.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the ruling "only
strengthens and adds more momentum to the efforts of those of us who
are working to repeal."

The White House, meanwhile, minimized the opinion, citing the divided
rulings by multiple federal courts around the country.

"Today's ruling is one of many decisions on the Affordable Care Act
that we will see in the weeks and months ahead," Obama aide Stephanie
Cutter wrote in a blog posting.

The ruling was not a total victory for the challengers. The appeals
court rejected the states' claim that Congress went too far by
expanding the Medicaid program for low-income Americans. The judges
also agreed the rest of the healthcare law could stand, even if the
insurance mandate is struck down.

The Atlanta-based court has a conservative reputation and had been
seen as the best forum for those challenging the law. The majority was
made up of Chief Judge Joel Dubina, an appointee of President George
H.W. Bush, and Judge Frank Hull, a female appointee of President
Clinton. The dissenter, Judge Stanley Marcus, was also a Clinton
appointee.

In dissent, Marcus said judges have a duty to act with "caution,
restraint and great humility" and uphold the laws enacted by the
elected representatives.

"At bottom, Congress rationally concluded that the uninsured's
consumption of healthcare services shifts enormous costs unto others …
and the individual mandate directly addresses this cost-shifting
problem," said Marcus in dissent.

The administration can appeal Friday's decision directly to the
Supreme Court. If an appeal petition is filed in the fall, the
justices are likely to hear the case early next year and rule by late
June.

Striking down the mandate could have dramatic consequences if
insurance premiums surge, as many experts fear.

That could put more pressure on the federal treasury because millions
of Americans are expected to qualify for federal subsidies starting in
2014 to help them buy insurance.

Ballooning subsidy costs could increase pressure to cut back other
healthcare initiatives in the law, including the expansion of state
Medicaid programs for low-income Americans.

Eliminating the mandate would probably have less impact on other parts
of the healthcare overhaul, including portions of the law designed to
make Medicare more efficient and to improve the quality of care that
hospitals and doctors provide.

In another ruling Friday, three judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals rejected a challenge to the insurance mandate brought by
former state legislator Steven Baldwin and the Pacific Justice
Institute, ruling they had no standing to sue.





Times staff writer Carol J. Williams in Los Angeles contributed to
this report.

Obomber is probably furious. Wonder if his lawyer buddy on the supreme
court will circumvent the constitution?

--
Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted
behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 09:18:04 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 12/08/2011 8:15 PM, TopBassDog wrote:
Speaking of good court decisions, Herr Krause. It is comforting to
know that there are a few jurists that follow your Constitutional
guidelines.
And one cut and paste deserves another, eh?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5180930.story

By David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau

August 13, 2011
Reporting from Washington—

A federal appeals court struck down a pillar of President Obama's
national healthcare law, ruling Congress does not have the power to
require all Americans to buy insurance and setting the stage for a
Supreme Court decision ahead of the 2012 election.

The 2-1 decision is a victory for Republican leaders in 26 states who
challenged the law last year, testing whether the signature
accomplishment of Obama's presidency would stand.

The Atlanta-based judges echoed the complaint that the mandate
represents an "unprecedented" expansion of federal power.

"The individual mandate is breathtaking in its expansive scope," two
judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in their 207-page
majority opinion.

Even during the Great Depression or World War II, "Congress never
sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher
savings rate or greater consumption of American goods," they observed.
Though Congress may regulate those who buy insurance, it may not
regulate those who "have not entered the insurance market and have no
intention of doing so," they said.

Conversely, other judges have upheld the law. In June, the Obama
administration prevailed before the federal appellate court in
Cincinnati, which in a split opinion ruled that the mandate
represented a constitutional exercise of Congress' authority to
regulate commerce.

About 50 million Americans lack basic health insurance. As a result,
hospitals and taxpayers are forced to pay about $43 billion a year to
cover the costs of those who are treated but cannot pay.

Many healthcare experts believe an insurance mandate is crucial not
only to controlling this cost shift but also to guaranteeing that all
Americans can get insurance, a right provided by the law. Without such
a requirement, they argue, consumers would be able to wait until they
were sick to buy insurance. That in turn would push up premiums.

However, the mandate galvanized GOP opposition to the law and helped
fuel the "tea party" movement.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the ruling "only
strengthens and adds more momentum to the efforts of those of us who
are working to repeal."

The White House, meanwhile, minimized the opinion, citing the divided
rulings by multiple federal courts around the country.

"Today's ruling is one of many decisions on the Affordable Care Act
that we will see in the weeks and months ahead," Obama aide Stephanie
Cutter wrote in a blog posting.

The ruling was not a total victory for the challengers. The appeals
court rejected the states' claim that Congress went too far by
expanding the Medicaid program for low-income Americans. The judges
also agreed the rest of the healthcare law could stand, even if the
insurance mandate is struck down.

The Atlanta-based court has a conservative reputation and had been
seen as the best forum for those challenging the law. The majority was
made up of Chief Judge Joel Dubina, an appointee of President George
H.W. Bush, and Judge Frank Hull, a female appointee of President
Clinton. The dissenter, Judge Stanley Marcus, was also a Clinton
appointee.

In dissent, Marcus said judges have a duty to act with "caution,
restraint and great humility" and uphold the laws enacted by the
elected representatives.

"At bottom, Congress rationally concluded that the uninsured's
consumption of healthcare services shifts enormous costs unto others …
and the individual mandate directly addresses this cost-shifting
problem," said Marcus in dissent.

The administration can appeal Friday's decision directly to the
Supreme Court. If an appeal petition is filed in the fall, the
justices are likely to hear the case early next year and rule by late
June.

Striking down the mandate could have dramatic consequences if
insurance premiums surge, as many experts fear.

That could put more pressure on the federal treasury because millions
of Americans are expected to qualify for federal subsidies starting in
2014 to help them buy insurance.

Ballooning subsidy costs could increase pressure to cut back other
healthcare initiatives in the law, including the expansion of state
Medicaid programs for low-income Americans.

Eliminating the mandate would probably have less impact on other parts
of the healthcare overhaul, including portions of the law designed to
make Medicare more efficient and to improve the quality of care that
hospitals and doctors provide.

In another ruling Friday, three judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals rejected a challenge to the insurance mandate brought by
former state legislator Steven Baldwin and the Pacific Justice
Institute, ruling they had no standing to sue.





Times staff writer Carol J. Williams in Los Angeles contributed to
this report.

Obomber is probably furious. Wonder if his lawyer buddy on the supreme
court will circumvent the constitution?

You're a racist little moron and a dim wit.

On 8/13/11 1:38 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 09:18:04 -0600,
wrote:

On 12/08/2011 8:15 PM, TopBassDog wrote:
Speaking of good court decisions, Herr Krause. It is comforting to
know that there are a few jurists that follow your Constitutional
guidelines.
And one cut and paste deserves another, eh?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5180930.story

By David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau

August 13, 2011
Reporting from Washington—

A federal appeals court struck down a pillar of President Obama's
national healthcare law, ruling Congress does not have the power to
require all Americans to buy insurance and setting the stage for a
Supreme Court decision ahead of the 2012 election.

The 2-1 decision is a victory for Republican leaders in 26 states who
challenged the law last year, testing whether the signature
accomplishment of Obama's presidency would stand.

The Atlanta-based judges echoed the complaint that the mandate
represents an "unprecedented" expansion of federal power.

"The individual mandate is breathtaking in its expansive scope," two
judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in their 207-page
majority opinion.

Even during the Great Depression or World War II, "Congress never
sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher
savings rate or greater consumption of American goods," they observed.
Though Congress may regulate those who buy insurance, it may not
regulate those who "have not entered the insurance market and have no
intention of doing so," they said.

Conversely, other judges have upheld the law. In June, the Obama
administration prevailed before the federal appellate court in
Cincinnati, which in a split opinion ruled that the mandate
represented a constitutional exercise of Congress' authority to
regulate commerce.

About 50 million Americans lack basic health insurance. As a result,
hospitals and taxpayers are forced to pay about $43 billion a year to
cover the costs of those who are treated but cannot pay.

Many healthcare experts believe an insurance mandate is crucial not
only to controlling this cost shift but also to guaranteeing that all
Americans can get insurance, a right provided by the law. Without such
a requirement, they argue, consumers would be able to wait until they
were sick to buy insurance. That in turn would push up premiums.

However, the mandate galvanized GOP opposition to the law and helped
fuel the "tea party" movement.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the ruling "only
strengthens and adds more momentum to the efforts of those of us who
are working to repeal."

The White House, meanwhile, minimized the opinion, citing the divided
rulings by multiple federal courts around the country.

"Today's ruling is one of many decisions on the Affordable Care Act
that we will see in the weeks and months ahead," Obama aide Stephanie
Cutter wrote in a blog posting.

The ruling was not a total victory for the challengers. The appeals
court rejected the states' claim that Congress went too far by
expanding the Medicaid program for low-income Americans. The judges
also agreed the rest of the healthcare law could stand, even if the
insurance mandate is struck down.

The Atlanta-based court has a conservative reputation and had been
seen as the best forum for those challenging the law. The majority was
made up of Chief Judge Joel Dubina, an appointee of President George
H.W. Bush, and Judge Frank Hull, a female appointee of President
Clinton. The dissenter, Judge Stanley Marcus, was also a Clinton
appointee.

In dissent, Marcus said judges have a duty to act with "caution,
restraint and great humility" and uphold the laws enacted by the
elected representatives.

"At bottom, Congress rationally concluded that the uninsured's
consumption of healthcare services shifts enormous costs unto others …
and the individual mandate directly addresses this cost-shifting
problem," said Marcus in dissent.

The administration can appeal Friday's decision directly to the
Supreme Court. If an appeal petition is filed in the fall, the
justices are likely to hear the case early next year and rule by late
June.

Striking down the mandate could have dramatic consequences if
insurance premiums surge, as many experts fear.

That could put more pressure on the federal treasury because millions
of Americans are expected to qualify for federal subsidies starting in
2014 to help them buy insurance.

Ballooning subsidy costs could increase pressure to cut back other
healthcare initiatives in the law, including the expansion of state
Medicaid programs for low-income Americans.

Eliminating the mandate would probably have less impact on other parts
of the healthcare overhaul, including portions of the law designed to
make Medicare more efficient and to improve the quality of care that
hospitals and doctors provide.

In another ruling Friday, three judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals rejected a challenge to the insurance mandate brought by
former state legislator Steven Baldwin and the Pacific Justice
Institute, ruling they had no standing to sue.





Times staff writer Carol J. Williams in Los Angeles contributed to
this report.

Obomber is probably furious. Wonder if his lawyer buddy on the supreme
court will circumvent the constitution?

You're a racist little moron and a dim wit.


My wife and have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in income taxes to
pay for wars we don't support and to subsidize tax breaks for
corporations that export American jobs overseas...

We have to pay about $4000 a year in local property taxes to send other
peoples' kids to school...

But the courts say I can go without medical insurance, which forces
other people to pay even more than they otherwise would in order to
cover the costs of my unwillingness to pay for health insurance.

America…charting the course of its own failure.

--
Don't forget to leave a bit of beef for rec.boat's right-wing
conservatrashers and ID spoofers to feed upon. The more they feed, the
quicker rec.boats will fall into the black hole of cyberspace and disappear.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 09:18:04 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 12/08/2011 8:15 PM, TopBassDog wrote:
Speaking of good court decisions, Herr Krause. It is comforting to
know that there are a few jurists that follow your Constitutional
guidelines.
And one cut and paste deserves another, eh?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5180930.story

By David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau

August 13, 2011
Reporting from Washington?

A federal appeals court struck down a pillar of President Obama's
national healthcare law, ruling Congress does not have the power to
require all Americans to buy insurance and setting the stage for a
Supreme Court decision ahead of the 2012 election.

The 2-1 decision is a victory for Republican leaders in 26 states who
challenged the law last year, testing whether the signature
accomplishment of Obama's presidency would stand.

The Atlanta-based judges echoed the complaint that the mandate
represents an "unprecedented" expansion of federal power.

"The individual mandate is breathtaking in its expansive scope," two
judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in their 207-page
majority opinion.

Even during the Great Depression or World War II, "Congress never
sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher
savings rate or greater consumption of American goods," they observed.
Though Congress may regulate those who buy insurance, it may not
regulate those who "have not entered the insurance market and have no
intention of doing so," they said.

Conversely, other judges have upheld the law. In June, the Obama
administration prevailed before the federal appellate court in
Cincinnati, which in a split opinion ruled that the mandate
represented a constitutional exercise of Congress' authority to
regulate commerce.

About 50 million Americans lack basic health insurance. As a result,
hospitals and taxpayers are forced to pay about $43 billion a year to
cover the costs of those who are treated but cannot pay.

Many healthcare experts believe an insurance mandate is crucial not
only to controlling this cost shift but also to guaranteeing that all
Americans can get insurance, a right provided by the law. Without such
a requirement, they argue, consumers would be able to wait until they
were sick to buy insurance. That in turn would push up premiums.

However, the mandate galvanized GOP opposition to the law and helped
fuel the "tea party" movement.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the ruling "only
strengthens and adds more momentum to the efforts of those of us who
are working to repeal."

The White House, meanwhile, minimized the opinion, citing the divided
rulings by multiple federal courts around the country.

"Today's ruling is one of many decisions on the Affordable Care Act
that we will see in the weeks and months ahead," Obama aide Stephanie
Cutter wrote in a blog posting.

The ruling was not a total victory for the challengers. The appeals
court rejected the states' claim that Congress went too far by
expanding the Medicaid program for low-income Americans. The judges
also agreed the rest of the healthcare law could stand, even if the
insurance mandate is struck down.

The Atlanta-based court has a conservative reputation and had been
seen as the best forum for those challenging the law. The majority was
made up of Chief Judge Joel Dubina, an appointee of President George
H.W. Bush, and Judge Frank Hull, a female appointee of President
Clinton. The dissenter, Judge Stanley Marcus, was also a Clinton
appointee.

In dissent, Marcus said judges have a duty to act with "caution,
restraint and great humility" and uphold the laws enacted by the
elected representatives.

"At bottom, Congress rationally concluded that the uninsured's
consumption of healthcare services shifts enormous costs unto others ?
and the individual mandate directly addresses this cost-shifting
problem," said Marcus in dissent.

The administration can appeal Friday's decision directly to the
Supreme Court. If an appeal petition is filed in the fall, the
justices are likely to hear the case early next year and rule by late
June.

Striking down the mandate could have dramatic consequences if
insurance premiums surge, as many experts fear.

That could put more pressure on the federal treasury because millions
of Americans are expected to qualify for federal subsidies starting in
2014 to help them buy insurance.

Ballooning subsidy costs could increase pressure to cut back other
healthcare initiatives in the law, including the expansion of state
Medicaid programs for low-income Americans.

Eliminating the mandate would probably have less impact on other parts
of the healthcare overhaul, including portions of the law designed to
make Medicare more efficient and to improve the quality of care that
hospitals and doctors provide.

In another ruling Friday, three judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals rejected a challenge to the insurance mandate brought by
former state legislator Steven Baldwin and the Pacific Justice
Institute, ruling they had no standing to sue.





Times staff writer Carol J. Williams in Los Angeles contributed to
this report.

Obomber is probably furious. Wonder if his lawyer buddy on the supreme
court will circumvent the constitution?

You're a racist little moron and a dim wit.

Racist and moron in one sentence. You're getting quite efficient!!

In article ,
says...

On 8/13/11 1:38 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 09:18:04 -0600,
wrote:

On 12/08/2011 8:15 PM, TopBassDog wrote:
Speaking of good court decisions, Herr Krause. It is comforting to
know that there are a few jurists that follow your Constitutional
guidelines.
And one cut and paste deserves another, eh?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5180930.story

By David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau

August 13, 2011
Reporting from Washington?

A federal appeals court struck down a pillar of President Obama's
national healthcare law, ruling Congress does not have the power to
require all Americans to buy insurance and setting the stage for a
Supreme Court decision ahead of the 2012 election.

The 2-1 decision is a victory for Republican leaders in 26 states who
challenged the law last year, testing whether the signature
accomplishment of Obama's presidency would stand.

The Atlanta-based judges echoed the complaint that the mandate
represents an "unprecedented" expansion of federal power.

"The individual mandate is breathtaking in its expansive scope," two
judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in their 207-page
majority opinion.

Even during the Great Depression or World War II, "Congress never
sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher
savings rate or greater consumption of American goods," they observed.
Though Congress may regulate those who buy insurance, it may not
regulate those who "have not entered the insurance market and have no
intention of doing so," they said.

Conversely, other judges have upheld the law. In June, the Obama
administration prevailed before the federal appellate court in
Cincinnati, which in a split opinion ruled that the mandate
represented a constitutional exercise of Congress' authority to
regulate commerce.

About 50 million Americans lack basic health insurance. As a result,
hospitals and taxpayers are forced to pay about $43 billion a year to
cover the costs of those who are treated but cannot pay.

Many healthcare experts believe an insurance mandate is crucial not
only to controlling this cost shift but also to guaranteeing that all
Americans can get insurance, a right provided by the law. Without such
a requirement, they argue, consumers would be able to wait until they
were sick to buy insurance. That in turn would push up premiums.

However, the mandate galvanized GOP opposition to the law and helped
fuel the "tea party" movement.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the ruling "only
strengthens and adds more momentum to the efforts of those of us who
are working to repeal."

The White House, meanwhile, minimized the opinion, citing the divided
rulings by multiple federal courts around the country.

"Today's ruling is one of many decisions on the Affordable Care Act
that we will see in the weeks and months ahead," Obama aide Stephanie
Cutter wrote in a blog posting.

The ruling was not a total victory for the challengers. The appeals
court rejected the states' claim that Congress went too far by
expanding the Medicaid program for low-income Americans. The judges
also agreed the rest of the healthcare law could stand, even if the
insurance mandate is struck down.

The Atlanta-based court has a conservative reputation and had been
seen as the best forum for those challenging the law. The majority was
made up of Chief Judge Joel Dubina, an appointee of President George
H.W. Bush, and Judge Frank Hull, a female appointee of President
Clinton. The dissenter, Judge Stanley Marcus, was also a Clinton
appointee.

In dissent, Marcus said judges have a duty to act with "caution,
restraint and great humility" and uphold the laws enacted by the
elected representatives.

"At bottom, Congress rationally concluded that the uninsured's
consumption of healthcare services shifts enormous costs unto others ?
and the individual mandate directly addresses this cost-shifting
problem," said Marcus in dissent.

The administration can appeal Friday's decision directly to the
Supreme Court. If an appeal petition is filed in the fall, the
justices are likely to hear the case early next year and rule by late
June.

Striking down the mandate could have dramatic consequences if
insurance premiums surge, as many experts fear.

That could put more pressure on the federal treasury because millions
of Americans are expected to qualify for federal subsidies starting in
2014 to help them buy insurance.

Ballooning subsidy costs could increase pressure to cut back other
healthcare initiatives in the law, including the expansion of state
Medicaid programs for low-income Americans.

Eliminating the mandate would probably have less impact on other parts
of the healthcare overhaul, including portions of the law designed to
make Medicare more efficient and to improve the quality of care that
hospitals and doctors provide.

In another ruling Friday, three judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals rejected a challenge to the insurance mandate brought by
former state legislator Steven Baldwin and the Pacific Justice
Institute, ruling they had no standing to sue.





Times staff writer Carol J. Williams in Los Angeles contributed to
this report.

Obomber is probably furious. Wonder if his lawyer buddy on the supreme
court will circumvent the constitution?

You're a racist little moron and a dim wit.


My wife and have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in income taxes to
pay for wars we don't support and to subsidize tax breaks for
corporations that export American jobs overseas...

We have to pay about $4000 a year in local property taxes to send other
peoples' kids to school...

But the courts say I can go without medical insurance, which forces
other people to pay even more than they otherwise would in order to
cover the costs of my unwillingness to pay for health insurance.

America?charting the course of its own failure.

Man, after that remark about doorknobs from Plume that made you skeet in
your pants, you sure have your nose up her ass!!!

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:44:16 -0400, X ~ Man
wrote:

On 8/13/11 1:38 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 09:18:04 -0600,
wrote:

On 12/08/2011 8:15 PM, TopBassDog wrote:
Speaking of good court decisions, Herr Krause. It is comforting to
know that there are a few jurists that follow your Constitutional
guidelines.
And one cut and paste deserves another, eh?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5180930.story

By David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau

August 13, 2011
Reporting from Washington—

A federal appeals court struck down a pillar of President Obama's
national healthcare law, ruling Congress does not have the power to
require all Americans to buy insurance and setting the stage for a
Supreme Court decision ahead of the 2012 election.

The 2-1 decision is a victory for Republican leaders in 26 states who
challenged the law last year, testing whether the signature
accomplishment of Obama's presidency would stand.

The Atlanta-based judges echoed the complaint that the mandate
represents an "unprecedented" expansion of federal power.

"The individual mandate is breathtaking in its expansive scope," two
judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in their 207-page
majority opinion.

Even during the Great Depression or World War II, "Congress never
sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher
savings rate or greater consumption of American goods," they observed.
Though Congress may regulate those who buy insurance, it may not
regulate those who "have not entered the insurance market and have no
intention of doing so," they said.

Conversely, other judges have upheld the law. In June, the Obama
administration prevailed before the federal appellate court in
Cincinnati, which in a split opinion ruled that the mandate
represented a constitutional exercise of Congress' authority to
regulate commerce.

About 50 million Americans lack basic health insurance. As a result,
hospitals and taxpayers are forced to pay about $43 billion a year to
cover the costs of those who are treated but cannot pay.

Many healthcare experts believe an insurance mandate is crucial not
only to controlling this cost shift but also to guaranteeing that all
Americans can get insurance, a right provided by the law. Without such
a requirement, they argue, consumers would be able to wait until they
were sick to buy insurance. That in turn would push up premiums.

However, the mandate galvanized GOP opposition to the law and helped
fuel the "tea party" movement.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the ruling "only
strengthens and adds more momentum to the efforts of those of us who
are working to repeal."

The White House, meanwhile, minimized the opinion, citing the divided
rulings by multiple federal courts around the country.

"Today's ruling is one of many decisions on the Affordable Care Act
that we will see in the weeks and months ahead," Obama aide Stephanie
Cutter wrote in a blog posting.

The ruling was not a total victory for the challengers. The appeals
court rejected the states' claim that Congress went too far by
expanding the Medicaid program for low-income Americans. The judges
also agreed the rest of the healthcare law could stand, even if the
insurance mandate is struck down.

The Atlanta-based court has a conservative reputation and had been
seen as the best forum for those challenging the law. The majority was
made up of Chief Judge Joel Dubina, an appointee of President George
H.W. Bush, and Judge Frank Hull, a female appointee of President
Clinton. The dissenter, Judge Stanley Marcus, was also a Clinton
appointee.

In dissent, Marcus said judges have a duty to act with "caution,
restraint and great humility" and uphold the laws enacted by the
elected representatives.

"At bottom, Congress rationally concluded that the uninsured's
consumption of healthcare services shifts enormous costs unto others …
and the individual mandate directly addresses this cost-shifting
problem," said Marcus in dissent.

The administration can appeal Friday's decision directly to the
Supreme Court. If an appeal petition is filed in the fall, the
justices are likely to hear the case early next year and rule by late
June.

Striking down the mandate could have dramatic consequences if
insurance premiums surge, as many experts fear.

That could put more pressure on the federal treasury because millions
of Americans are expected to qualify for federal subsidies starting in
2014 to help them buy insurance.

Ballooning subsidy costs could increase pressure to cut back other
healthcare initiatives in the law, including the expansion of state
Medicaid programs for low-income Americans.

Eliminating the mandate would probably have less impact on other parts
of the healthcare overhaul, including portions of the law designed to
make Medicare more efficient and to improve the quality of care that
hospitals and doctors provide.

In another ruling Friday, three judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals rejected a challenge to the insurance mandate brought by
former state legislator Steven Baldwin and the Pacific Justice
Institute, ruling they had no standing to sue.





Times staff writer Carol J. Williams in Los Angeles contributed to
this report.

Obomber is probably furious. Wonder if his lawyer buddy on the supreme
court will circumvent the constitution?

You're a racist little moron and a dim wit.


My wife and have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in income taxes to
pay for wars we don't support and to subsidize tax breaks for
corporations that export American jobs overseas...

We have to pay about $4000 a year in local property taxes to send other
peoples' kids to school...

But the courts say I can go without medical insurance, which forces
other people to pay even more than they otherwise would in order to
cover the costs of my unwillingness to pay for health insurance.

America…charting the course of its own failure.

I tend to go with what Churchill said.. paraphrasing... we try all the
stupid-ass things before we do what's right.

On Aug 13, 2:33*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:44:16 -0400, X ~ Man
wrote:









On 8/13/11 1:38 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 09:18:04 -0600,
wrote:

On 12/08/2011 8:15 PM, TopBassDog wrote:
Speaking of good court decisions, Herr Krause. It is comforting to
know that there are a few jurists that follow your Constitutional
guidelines.
And one cut and paste deserves another, eh?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...urt-healthcare....

By David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau

August 13, 2011
Reporting from Washington

A federal appeals court struck down a pillar of President Obama's
national healthcare law, ruling Congress does not have the power to
require all Americans to buy insurance and setting the stage for a
Supreme Court decision ahead of the 2012 election.

The 2-1 decision is a victory for Republican leaders in 26 states who
challenged the law last year, testing whether the signature
accomplishment of Obama's presidency would stand.

The Atlanta-based judges echoed the complaint that the mandate
represents an "unprecedented" expansion of federal power.

"The individual mandate is breathtaking in its expansive scope," two
judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in their 207-page
majority opinion.

Even during the Great Depression or World War II, "Congress never
sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher
savings rate or greater consumption of American goods," they observed.
Though Congress may regulate those who buy insurance, it may not
regulate those who "have not entered the insurance market and have no
intention of doing so," they said.

Conversely, other judges have upheld the law. In June, the Obama
administration prevailed before the federal appellate court in
Cincinnati, which in a split opinion ruled that the mandate
represented a constitutional exercise of Congress' authority to
regulate commerce.

About 50 million Americans lack basic health insurance. As a result,
hospitals and taxpayers are forced to pay about $43 billion a year to
cover the costs of those who are treated but cannot pay.

Many healthcare experts believe an insurance mandate is crucial not
only to controlling this cost shift but also to guaranteeing that all
Americans can get insurance, a right provided by the law. Without such
a requirement, they argue, consumers would be able to wait until they
were sick to buy insurance. That in turn would push up premiums.

However, the mandate galvanized GOP opposition to the law and helped
fuel the "tea party" movement.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the ruling "only
strengthens and adds more momentum to the efforts of those of us who
are working to repeal."

The White House, meanwhile, minimized the opinion, citing the divided
rulings by multiple federal courts around the country.

"Today's ruling is one of many decisions on the Affordable Care Act
that we will see in the weeks and months ahead," Obama aide Stephanie
Cutter wrote in a blog posting.

The ruling was not a total victory for the challengers. The appeals
court rejected the states' claim that Congress went too far by
expanding the Medicaid program for low-income Americans. The judges
also agreed the rest of the healthcare law could stand, even if the
insurance mandate is struck down.

The Atlanta-based court has a conservative reputation and had been
seen as the best forum for those challenging the law. The majority was
made up of Chief Judge Joel Dubina, an appointee of President George
H.W. Bush, and Judge Frank Hull, a female appointee of President
Clinton. The dissenter, Judge Stanley Marcus, was also a Clinton
appointee.

In dissent, Marcus said judges have a duty to act with "caution,
restraint and great humility" and uphold the laws enacted by the
elected representatives.

"At bottom, Congress rationally concluded that the uninsured's
consumption of healthcare services shifts enormous costs unto others
and the individual mandate directly addresses this cost-shifting
problem," said Marcus in dissent.

The administration can appeal Friday's decision directly to the
Supreme Court. If an appeal petition is filed in the fall, the
justices are likely to hear the case early next year and rule by late
June.

Striking down the mandate could have dramatic consequences if
insurance premiums surge, as many experts fear.

That could put more pressure on the federal treasury because millions
of Americans are expected to qualify for federal subsidies starting in
2014 to help them buy insurance.

Ballooning subsidy costs could increase pressure to cut back other
healthcare initiatives in the law, including the expansion of state
Medicaid programs for low-income Americans.

Eliminating the mandate would probably have less impact on other parts
of the healthcare overhaul, including portions of the law designed to
make Medicare more efficient and to improve the quality of care that
hospitals and doctors provide.

In another ruling Friday, three judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals rejected a challenge to the insurance mandate brought by
former state legislator Steven Baldwin and the Pacific Justice
Institute, ruling they had no standing to sue.





Times staff writer Carol J. Williams in Los Angeles contributed to
this report.

Obomber is probably furious. *Wonder if his lawyer buddy on the supreme
court will circumvent the constitution?

You're a racist little moron and a dim wit.

My wife and have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in income taxes to
pay for wars we don't support and to subsidize tax breaks for
corporations that export American jobs overseas...

We have to pay about $4000 a year in local property taxes to send other
peoples' kids to school...

But the courts say I can go without medical insurance, which forces
other people to pay even more than they otherwise would in order to
cover the costs of my unwillingness to pay for health insurance.

America charting the course of its own failure.

I tend to go with what Churchill said.. paraphrasing... we try all the
stupid-ass things before we do what's right.

I'm glad you are becoming enlightened of the antics of your nations
current Administration, D'Plume.