Train Wreck News: Current Lawsuits

One of the constantly repeated phrases heard in the endless banter about the PPACA (Obamacare) is that it was "held constitutional by the Supreme Court", as though the decision on one case is the ultimate, final word on this law.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Courts just don't work that way. If it were true, there would be no lawsuits over DADT, the No Child Left Behind law, or the AUMF. One challenge in court decided in favor of the law would be the end of the road.  One decision, and the law becomes permanently settled and invincible.

Nonsense. Courts decide cases. They do not "validate laws".

Pushing the "held constitutional" talking point simply reveals an ignorance of our constitution and our system of government. That's not how courts work. That's not what our constitution says.

This article in Forbes outlines a partial list of the most interesting challenges to the PPACA.  As you might expect, 2000 pages of "law" leaves lots of opportunity for challenge, and opponents are looking for ways to derail it.

Like all of our law, the PPACA will be subject to challenge as long as it is on the books.  Over time, courts will be asked to rule on every aspect of the law.  Every flaw, every chink in its armour will be explored and tested.  It is likely that some suits will succeed, striking parts of the PPACA. Others will fail, but the challenges will continue, as they should.

That's how it works.