cinyc vs. Atlasia

[cinyc]

With the Supreme Court's indulgence, (and assuming it has not been done already) I'd like to bring suit questioning the constitutionality of the Atlasian National Healthcare Act, signed by President Lief on August 13, 2009. 

At a minimum, I'd like to argue that:

1) Section 1(d)'s mandate that "all private and public hospitals and doctors are required to be participating providers" violates doctors' freedom of religion and association under Article VI, Section 1 of the Second Atlasian Constitution, and constitutes a prohibited involuntary servitude under Article VI, Section 3;

2) Section 1(f)'s mandate that private health insurance companies join a government-mandated Health Exchange or cease operations, and provide insurance to individuals as directed by the government, violates those companies' freedom of association and constitutes an illegal taking without just compensation under Article VI, Section 9;

3) Section 2(a)'s payment mechanism - which appears to require that the government reimburse for all health care services rendered regardless of cost without a yearly cap or appropriation - violates the Appropriations Clause of Article I, Section 6, Clause 5; and

4) the law in general exceeds the Senate's power over health care matters as enumerated in Article I, Section 5, Clauses 13 and 14.

In the alternative, I will request an injunction, preventing the government of Atlasia from forcing religious hospitals and doctors from performing procedures with which they have deeply-held religious objections, including abortion.

Should the Supreme Court decide to hear this case, I'll gladly submit a full brief.  I'm willing to wait until after the Court hears and finalizes its opinion(s) in Purple State v. Lief  if the court thinks its work load is too heavy right now.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh dear, I see that the Bono method is back.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Quite easily one of the most dumbest and most convoluted cases I've seen in my time here. If Bgwah is too busy (computer difficulties) I'll happily argue the defense for him.

[cinyc]

Quite easily one of the most dumbest and most convoluted cases I've seen in my time here. If Bgwah is too busy (computer difficulties) I'll happily argue the defense for him.

Well, if the case is dumb and convoluted, the court simply need not hear any or all parts of it.  I can whittle down my grounds to (1) and (3) if necessary.  Petitioning for the court to hear it is my right as a citizen of Atlasia.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Quite easily one of the most dumbest and most convoluted cases I've seen in my time here. If Bgwah is too busy (computer difficulties) I'll happily argue the defense for him.

Well, if the case is dumb and convoluted, the court simply need not hear any or all parts of it.  I can whittle down my grounds to (1) and (3) if necessary.  Petitioning for the court to hear it is my right as a citizen of Atlasia.

It certainly is your right, no doubt.

However, the court tends to be pretty generous with what cases they agree to hear. And with all the point you slung out there (good ones or not) make it more likely the SC will find some flimsy reasoning to grant a hearing.

[Purple State]

Quite easily one of the most dumbest and most convoluted cases I've seen in my time here. If Bgwah is too busy (computer difficulties) I'll happily argue the defense for him.

Well, if the case is dumb and convoluted, the court simply need not hear any or all parts of it.  I can whittle down my grounds to (1) and (3) if necessary.  Petitioning for the court to hear it is my right as a citizen of Atlasia.

It certainly is your right, no doubt.

However, the court tends to be pretty generous with what cases they agree to hear. And with all the point you slung out there (good ones or not) make it more likely the SC will find some flimsy reasoning to grant a hearing.

I don't think we should deride the court for what cases they choose to take. There is not much precedent on the books, so the more cases that allows the justices the ability to further clarify the Constitution isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Quite easily one of the most dumbest and most convoluted cases I've seen in my time here. If Bgwah is too busy (computer difficulties) I'll happily argue the defense for him.

Well, if the case is dumb and convoluted, the court simply need not hear any or all parts of it.  I can whittle down my grounds to (1) and (3) if necessary.  Petitioning for the court to hear it is my right as a citizen of Atlasia.

It certainly is your right, no doubt.

However, the court tends to be pretty generous with what cases they agree to hear. And with all the point you slung out there (good ones or not) make it more likely the SC will find some flimsy reasoning to grant a hearing.

I don't think we should deride the court for what cases they choose to take. There is not much precedent on the books, so the more cases that allows the justices the ability to further clarify the Constitution isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Perhaps so, but you should look up some of the things he's citing here. Unconstitutional because of freedom of religion? Appropriation restrictions? Bit silly.

[bullmoose88]

Could the petitioner articulate how he has standing to sue in this matter.

[cinyc]

Could the petitioner articulate how he has standing to sue in this matter.

Sure.  I represent Catholic hospitals and doctors who do not want to participate in a program that could be viewed to require they provide abortion services against their deeply held religious beliefs, and other doctors who do not want to be forced to work for the Atlasian government.  Both have actual injuries-in-fact.

[cinyc]

May it please the court, I'd be willing to delay hearing of this case so that the court could hear and render a decision in the more time-sensitive Xahar v. Lief case before the upcoming elections.

[bullmoose88]

Official Atlasia Supreme Court Release
Nyman, DC

Writ of Certiorari
The Court grants Certiorari to Petitioner's Question 1.

The Court also grants Certiorari to Petitioner's Question 4.

The Court declines Certiorari as to Petitioner's Questions 2 and 3.

Schedule
The plaintiff has until Next Monday to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Monday October 12, 2009.

The defendant has an additional seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Thursday, October 15, 2009.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 5:00PM EDT, Tuesday October 13, 2009, unless the filing party can show sufficient need.

Additional time may be granted to either party upon a showing of sufficient need.

A possible period of argument (Q&A) may be scheduled after presentation of the briefs in case any member of the Court has any questions for the parties.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well now that freedom of religion is involved, I don't expect this case to end well.

[afleitch]

Well now that freedom of religion is involved, I don't expect this case to end well.

Possibly, however...

Could the petitioner articulate how he has standing to sue in this matter.

Sure.  I represent Catholic hospitals and doctors who do not want to participate in a program that could be viewed to require they provide abortion services against their deeply held religious beliefs, and other doctors who do not want to be forced to work for the Atlasian government.  Both have actual injuries-in-fact.

Cinycs motivation if extended to other socialised instutions such as fire coverage, police protection and education could lead to the absurd; like a police offer being excempted from 'shooting to kill' because his religion says murder is wrong.

[bullmoose88]

The court reminds those not party to the suit that they are free (and encouraged) to submit amicus briefs before the deadline.

[afleitch]

The court reminds those not party to the suit that they are free (and encouraged) to submit amicus briefs before the deadline.

In order to stop doctors 'conscientiously objecting' to providing healthcare by hiding behind religion I will do so.

[Ebowed]

My amicus brief.

Regarding Question 1

It is clear that the legislation in question undeniably violates Article VI, Section 1.  Section 1, clause b stipulates that all individuals in Atlasia must be provided with "medically necessary services."  Should a doctor have a personal objection to, say, homosexuality on the basis of the justifiable and historical condemnation of the practice due to the religious tradition of the orientation being considered aberrant, he would nonetheless be required to treat homosexuals as though they were actual human beings deserving of the medical care entitled to others.  Were this legislation not clearly unconstitutional on these grounds alone, the consequences of this could indeed be far-reaching.  In addition, the legislation clearly has abortion written all over it.  In requiring, for example, that "emergency care" is covered by the program, a woman who is suffering from an ectopic pregnancy and thus wishing to have the fetus murdered so that she may continue to live her life, would be able to force a private Catholic hospital, with a noted and justifiable religious objection to the treatment of life-endangering pregnancies, into committing acts of medical service which violate the conscience to such an extent that it is truly disgusting to even consider that the Senate was willing to pass such legislation without an exemption for the sincerely held religious beliefs of doctors.

In general, when someone is unable and unwilling to carry out the duties of their profession due to religious objection, and as such are potentially endangering the lives of others, they are merely exercising their right to freedom of belief, religious view and association.

Regarding Question 4

Petitioner is indeed correct in asserting that the Senate lacks the appropriate constitutional jurisdiction to pass legislation of such wide-reaching scope.  Clause 13 of Article I, Section 5, for example, clearly refers to the diagnosis and treatment of medical disorders such as homosexuality rather than any sort of authorization to protect the public health.  Clause 14 similarly refers only to medical emergencies and not the general well-being of the public.  As the only two references to health whatsoever anywhere in the Constitution, it is clear that the Senate does not possess the ability to pass some sort of large-scale insurance program.

[bullmoose88]

Another reminder and request for amicus brief submission.

[bullmoose88]

Reminder

Petitioner's Brief is due Monday...Amicus due Tuesday

[bullmoose88]

Does the Petitioner have a good reason why his brief is delayed?

[Marokai Backbeat]

A fantasy reason, perhaps!

[afleitch]

In the alternative, I will request an injunction, preventing the government of Atlasia from forcing religious hospitals and doctors from performing procedures with which they have deeply-held religious objections, including abortion.

The petitioner appears to be of the opinion that religious belief 'trumps' all other human differences. Speaking on behalf of Gay Atlasians who may be denied treatment for 'consciencious' reasons; which could impact their access to contraceptives, sexual health advice and reponses to health and mental health tailored to their orientation, I would remind the court that Gay Atlasians right to the access of public services without discrimination is outlined in the Civil Rights Act 2007. Specifically Section 2.3  3. 'It shall be illegal for any Regional, State, or Local government to deny access to public facilities to any person on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.'

Given the effects of the healthcare bill I would contest that healthcare is prescribed through a 'public facility'. Any injuction to allow people of faith to refuse to offer a public service to gay citizens would violate the Act as well as set a disturbing precedent.

[cinyc]

Does the Petitioner have a good reason why his brief is delayed?

Not really - I've just been busy (unlike when I originally filed the suit), and I will be for a while.  Therefore, I ask the court to dismiss the case, since I won't have time to file a coherent brief.

[Sam Spade]

Ok.  Case dismissed then.