Appeals Court rules HC law constitutional...again

[JimH52]

Health care law held constitutional in latest appeals court ruling - CNN.com

"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins," wrote Judge Laurence Silberman.

One justice that voted for it was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

 

[JimH52]

Conservative Appeals Court Judge Writes Opinion Upholding Health Law : Shots - Health Blog : NPR

An appeals court judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan just wrote an opinion affirming the constitutionality of the federal law overhauling health care.
That makes three appeals court decisions in favor of the law and one against, if you're keeping track.

But the latest decision written by Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, could shift the prospects for challenges against the law, which are expected to reach the Supreme Court within months.

"If someone like Judge Silberman, who is among the most conservative judges in the country, is willing to say that this case has no merit, I think it's a very very good sign that some of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court are going to break ranks as well," Ian Millhiser, a policy analyst at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, told NPR.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton of the 6th Circuit court of appeals reached a similar conclusion in his review of the ACA as did the majority in the current case:

[W]e should be just as cautious
about prematurely or unnecessarily rejecting the
Government’s Commerce Clause argument. The reason is
plain and needs little elaboration: Striking down a federal law
as beyond Congress’s Commerce Clause authority is a rare,
extraordinary, and momentous act for a federal court. See
Lopez, 514 U.S. at 568, 568-75 (Kennedy, J., concurring)
(exploring Commerce Clause history, which “counsels great
restraint before the Court determines that the Clause is
insufficient to support an exercise of the national power&#8221.

The elected Branches designed this law to help provide
all Americans with access to affordable health insurance and
quality health care, vital policy objectives. This legislation
was enacted, moreover, after a high-profile and vigorous
national debate. Courts must afford great respect to that
legislative effort and should be wary of upending it.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/055C0349A6E85D7A8525794200579735/$file/11-5047-1340594.pdf

Like Judge Sutton, Judge Silberman expresses a fundamental conservative judicial tenet: that issues such as the ACA are best addressed by the legislative, not judicial, branch. The will of the people through their elected officials should be paramount, and their will via Congress not discarded accordingly.

In Lopez, and later in Morrison, the Court held that acts of Congress should be considered Constitutional until such time a court says they’re not.

Even Justice Scalia has remarked that the people shouldn’t go running to the courts every time a legislative issue doesn’t go their way, that the issue should be addressed by elected officials.

And in the Thomas More Law Center case, Judge Sutton noted that just because a law is ‘bad’ doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional.

All of this makes it extremely unlikely that the Court will strike down the ACA, given the opinions of clearly conservative judges.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The government has no authority to force me to buy something I do not want. If that's the case then they also have the authority to force people to buy guns.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton of the 6th Circuit court of appeals reached a similar conclusion in his review of the ACA as did the majority in the current case:

This legislation was enacted, moreover, after a high-profile and vigorous national debate.

Bullshit! There WAS no debate! It wasn't even PASSED it was DEEMED!

When Nancy Pelosi was asked if it was Constitutional she didn't even have an answer!: "You're kidding right?"

 

[jillian]

Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton of the 6th Circuit court of appeals reached a similar conclusion in his review of the ACA as did the majority in the current case:

This legislation was enacted, moreover, after a high-profile and vigorous national debate.

Bullshit! There WAS no debate! It wasn't even PASSED it was DEEMED!

When Nancy Pelosi was asked if it was Constitutional she didn't even have an answer!: "You're kidding right?"

dude, it was debated for months. that's just silly. you might not like it, but there was no lack of discussion.

 

[Greenbeard]

Bullshit! There WAS no debate!

Other than the series of committee hearings on the health reform provisions that began in 2008, the presidential election in which health care reform was a prominent issue, the eight months of legislative process (including five committee markups and floor debates in each chamber), and the national debate outside of the halls of Congress, sure. No debate.

It wasn't even PASSED it was DEEMED!

No, it wasn't deemed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Arrest me I ain't buying the shit.

 

[JimH52]

Arrest me I ain't buying the shit.

Nice! So when you sick ars goes to the emergency room suffering from a stroke, if you don't have insurance, rather than spend my tax dollars on you, you need to die. No insurance, no tax dollars to save you...Then you should be put in a taxi and sent home.

WORKS FOR ME!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Arrest me I ain't buying the shit.

Nice! So when you sick ars goes to the emergency room suffering from a stroke, if you don't have insurance, rather than spend my tax dollars on you, you need to die. No insurance, no tax dollars to save you...Then you should be put in a taxi and sent home.

WORKS FOR ME!

I will do like I have always done take care of myself or if I have to go to the emergency room pay for it myself. Like when my second wife had a miscarriage and had to spend time in the hospital. I set up a payment plan and paid for it. Something you seem clueless about.

 

[Sallow]

The government has no authority to force me to buy something I do not want. If that's the case then they also have the authority to force people to buy guns.

At one point they did.

 

[Sallow]

Arrest me I ain't buying the shit.

Nice! So when you sick ars goes to the emergency room suffering from a stroke, if you don't have insurance, rather than spend my tax dollars on you, you need to die. No insurance, no tax dollars to save you...Then you should be put in a taxi and sent home.

WORKS FOR ME!

I will do like I have always done take care of myself or if I have to go to the emergency room pay for it myself. Like when my second wife had a miscarriage and had to spend time in the hospital. I set up a payment plan and paid for it. Something you seem clueless about.

The type of system you advocate for would make no such provision for a "payment plan". And if you are an advocate for forcing hospitals, which are by in large for profit, to accept everyone in thier emergency rooms, regardless of income and/or ability to pay, then you are advocating for a system that burdens tax payers more then the Health Care Package.

 

[Sallow]

Arrest me I ain't buying the shit.

Nice! So when you sick ars goes to the emergency room suffering from a stroke, if you don't have insurance, rather than spend my tax dollars on you, you need to die. No insurance, no tax dollars to save you...Then you should be put in a taxi and sent home.

WORKS FOR ME!

AKA the Republican/Conservative heroine plan of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

It's called:

"Don't get sick. If you get sick, Die and Die quickly.:

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Arrest me I ain't buying the shit.

Nice! So when you sick ars goes to the emergency room suffering from a stroke, if you don't have insurance, rather than spend my tax dollars on you, you need to die. No insurance, no tax dollars to save you...Then you should be put in a taxi and sent home.

WORKS FOR ME!

AKA the Republican/Conservative heroine plan of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

It's called:

"Don't get sick. If you get sick, Die and Die quickly.:

obama's plan works a little slower until it is fully in place
It will be get sick we will kill you with neglect.

 

[Full-Auto]

Nice! So when you sick ars goes to the emergency room suffering from a stroke, if you don't have insurance, rather than spend my tax dollars on you, you need to die. No insurance, no tax dollars to save you...Then you should be put in a taxi and sent home.

WORKS FOR ME!

AKA the Republican/Conservative heroine plan of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

It's called:

"Don't get sick. If you get sick, Die and Die quickly.:

obama's plan works a little slower until it is fully in place
It will be get sick we will kill you with neglect.

Take note at the OWS supporters here screaming for corporate control.

 

[California Girl]

Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton of the 6th Circuit court of appeals reached a similar conclusion in his review of the ACA as did the majority in the current case:

Bullshit! There WAS no debate! It wasn't even PASSED it was DEEMED!

When Nancy Pelosi was asked if it was Constitutional she didn't even have an answer!: "You're kidding right?"

dude, it was debated for months. that's just silly. you might not like it, but there was no lack of discussion.

Well, since it seems that our representatives didn't even read the fucking thing... what exactly were they discussing? Even your Queen Pelosi said we had to 'pass it to see what's in it'.

I guess perhaps some of us have a different standard for the definition of 'discussion'.

 

[Full-Auto]

judge jeffrey s. Sutton of the 6th circuit court of appeals reached a similar conclusion in his review of the aca as did the majority in the current case:

bullshit! there was no debate! It wasn't even passed it was deemed!

When nancy pelosi was asked if it was constitutional she didn't even have an answer!: "you're kidding right?"

dude, it was debated for months. That's just silly. You might not like it, but there was no lack of discussion.

then post up!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nice! So when you sick ars goes to the emergency room suffering from a stroke, if you don't have insurance, rather than spend my tax dollars on you, you need to die. No insurance, no tax dollars to save you...Then you should be put in a taxi and sent home.

WORKS FOR ME!

I will do like I have always done take care of myself or if I have to go to the emergency room pay for it myself. Like when my second wife had a miscarriage and had to spend time in the hospital. I set up a payment plan and paid for it. Something you seem clueless about.

The type of system you advocate for would make no such provision for a "payment plan". And if you are an advocate for forcing hospitals, which are by in large for profit, to accept everyone in thier emergency rooms, regardless of income and/or ability to pay, then you are advocating for a system that burdens tax payers more then the Health Care Package.

This is getting old with disgust I must call you stupid. The system I advocate is called personal responsibility. You make the bill you pay for it. Stop being stupid, I believe that you aren't but I could be misjudging you.

 

[dblack]

Like Judge Sutton, Judge Silberman expresses a fundamental conservative judicial tenet: that issues such as the ACA are best addressed by the legislative, not judicial, branch. The will of the people through their elected officials should be paramount, and their will via Congress not discarded accordingly.

Heh... sure, if you deny the entire precept of constitutionally limited government. I realize, many of you would love to do just that, but we're not quite there yet. The point of having specifically enumerated powers is to do exactly what you're complaining about: set clear limits on the democratic will of the people.

Are you seriously advocating for unlimited majority rule?

 

[Dragon]

The point of having specifically enumerated powers is to do exactly what you're complaining about: set clear limits on the democratic will of the people.

Actually, no, it's not. It's to ensure that we have a federal system with a limited NATIONAL government, and preserve the limited independence of the STATE governments. Since the state governments are democratically elected, too, and are NOT restrained by enumerated powers -- a state government CAN do anything the people want, except what is explicitly forbidden either by the U.S. Constitution or its own -- the enumerated powers in the Constitution do not put limits on the democratic will of the people. They just require that that will be expressed at the state rather than federal level, except as authorized.

The Bill of Rights does set limits on democracy. Enumerated powers do not.