U.S. Appeals court throws out Iowa artist’s Obamacare challenge

[DonViejo]

Source: Reuters

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday dismissed a long-shot challenge to the Obamacare health law brought by an Iowa artist.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected claims made by Matt Sissel, who was backed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative legal group.

Sissel claimed, among other things, that the 2010 law violated a provision of the U.S. Constitution that says any revenue-raising legislation must originate in the House of Representatives, not in the Senate, as Obamacare did.

In Tuesday’s ruling, the appeals court upheld a lower court decision that dismissed the case.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/29/u-s-appeals-court-throws-out-iowa-artists-obamacare-challenge/

[BumRushDaShow]

1. They're back to that again?

This is why the law was done in 2 parts where the final piece, done as an amendment to the original, was attached onto a House-originated bill.

The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, was also passed by the House on March 21, by the Senate via reconciliation on March 25, and was signed by President Obama on March 30.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

[freshwest]

3. DERP! Reconciliation is how it's done and the plaintiff missed the SCOTUS ruling, too.

Keep trying, RWNJs. We need the laughs.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. I had wondered what happened at the District Court level

and saw that they didn't even bother and threw it out, which is what prompted the appeal. I expect they'll keep going up to the SCOTUS, where it will abruptly be thrown out for the final time.

[C Moon]

2. Pacific Legal Foundation? That sounds like a Koch-ed up (I pronounce it cook) organization to me.

[alp227]

5. AP: Appeals court rejects tax challenge to Obamacare

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/tax-challenge-obamacare-rejected

"The Supreme Court has held from the early days of this nation that revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue," the appeals court decision said.

The challengers to the law said it began in the Senate when Majority Leader Harry Reid took an unrelated House bill and inserted language that became the Affordable Care Act. The original measure was designed to help veterans buy homes.

Appeals judge Judith Rogers, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, wrote the opinion for the court. The other two judges in the case — Cornelia Pillard and Robert Wilkins — are appointees of President Barack Obama.

Pacific Legal Foundation said the appeals court judges adopted a vague general purpose test for deciding which taxes have to start in the House and which do not. The Constitution, the organization said, makes no such distinction and neither does Supreme Court precedent. The group said it will pursue the issue — up to the Supreme Court if necessary.