FL Judge Vinson's Ruling Invalidates Any Senate Vote On The Current Law(?)!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by mascale, Feb 2, 2011.

  1. mascale
    Offline

    mascale VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,035
    Thanks Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +453
    Should there be a repeal of The Affordable Health Care Act, including with its lack of the severability clause?

    The recent ruling of the Florida Judge, Vinson: Would seem to say, "No!" It is widely known that Republicans are very good at saying, "Nyet," which is Communist for, "No!"

    "I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here," Vinson wrote.

    "While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

    Congress is not without power to address what it did, but somehow the judge finds that arithmetic is not necessary and essential to heatlh care reform in general, in the context of interstate commerce(?)! The Individual Mandate is not about a product. The other invalidating judge had the same problem--in misunderstanidng what the Affordable Act is all about.

    The Republicans, including at the state AG level: Are mainly only interested in making themselves look stupid. No constituent interest is being addessed, and no individual right is being usurped--in the act--or protected in repeal. The Judge recounted how he himself was rich enough to actually pay for medical care with cash. The usual interpretation of the Constitution is that more than just the individual rights of the rich are guaranteed in the U. S. Constitution.

    "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
    (A false police report forced LAUSD in lockdown for sufficient hours, in fact, to force the need to use classroom wastebaskets for toilets. This important lesson from school could in fact be applied to the alleys, streets, sidewalks, and dumpster areas: Of all of Venice Beach, in California. Everyone knows that school is meant to improve the quality of life for everyone! And there. . . you. . .go! Even bums at Venice Beach, need this lesson!)
     
  2. Green Hornet
    Offline

    Green Hornet Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    24
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +6
    If the US Supreme Court allows this bill to go forward, it does mean that our government can control more of our individual lives one brick at a time.
     
  3. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,560
    Thanks Received:
    8,165
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,187
    Nothing about the decision stops would stop the Senate from acting. Though if the Supreme Court upheld the decision, then it would make any repeal efforts moot.

    You really need to work on comprehension. You're post makes little to know sense. Jim Crow has nothing to do with this.
     
  4. gekaap
    Offline

    gekaap BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,795
    Thanks Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +135
    Agreed. Just because a law is declared unconstitutional does not mean that the law cannot be repealed by the legislator. Especially if the court action lacked any injunctive relief, though I doubt that's happened. Also especially if there is any appeal pending or anticipated, which is likely because the Justice Department tends to appeal any decision declaring a law unconstitutional. Notice how DADT was declared unconstitutional late last year, and while the Justice Dept. was appealing the case the legislature still passed a repeal.
     
  5. mascale
    Offline

    mascale VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,035
    Thanks Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +453
    The now famous judge had suggested that the Boston Tea Party opposition to a compulsory tax, in the "No Taxation Without Representation" kind of context: Was every bit analogous to the matter of compulsory participation, in the arthmetic pool, of national health insurance.

    "No Taxation Without Representation" does not apply in the Affordable Health Care case. The Great Advance of Socialist interventionism, in America: Was passed with consent, in two legislative chambers, and signed into law at the Executive Branch. That is compulsion, with representation.

    That is not the same thing as was the Boston Tea Party, of that forlorn time: When only wastebaskets were around, for the usual and customary matters. Even Catholics know that now they can dispose of their rubbers, at their own discretion: In all kinds of places!

    "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
    (And of course in India, The Civilized Folk All know that the proper role, of the lower caste among them: Is take from the "wastebaskets," and dump it all into the Ganges! In Great Civilizations: There are chambers, and then there are chambers--and even chambers, wherein commerce is done, (as long as there is bottled water on the table!)
     
  6. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    The administration already said it will appeal and it will likely ask for a stay until the appeal is heard which will make the ruling nothing more than an opinion.

    That being said, the law is still a law and thus can go through any motion of congress...be it an appeal, a vote, an ammendment, etc.

    Your post is absurd.

    And by the way.....one can get single coverage health insurance for $3500 a year.

    By no means does that mean it is only for the rich. Most people spend more than that on entertainment during the course of the year.
     
  7. mascale
    Offline

    mascale VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,035
    Thanks Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +453
    Since even the Reagan-Era judge acknowledged that Congress has the power to regulate the 1/6 of the economy--subject of the Affordable Health Care Act--and since both federal legislatures have passed the Affordable Health Care Act, which was then signed into law: Then the voting has already been done.

    Then since the appellate process tends to render the Florida rule an opinion, then the Senate is far less relevant to the process than it was before the Midterms. The Senate is partisan Democrat, plus the one elected from Alaska, who may not be of the majority of the opposition party any more. That presupposes that the Republicans: Even have a majority, in their own party.

    Can the United States adopt arithmetic, in the solution of policy problems? Even the money gets subject to regulation, and in Congress. If on the one hand the Republicans intend a budget deficit solution--which will be arithmetic--then likely the Republicans will tend to support the Affordable Health Care solution: Which is arithmetic.

    In America, we do have courts: Which clearly , however, are now shown able to disagree!

    "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
    (Can there be a mixed-use, real estate solution to domestic problems--even in India--or is it better to suffer nuclear with Pakistan instead? Shakespeare never even asked that question!?)
     

Share This Page