Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

[driveby]

This is Karma:

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

Judge uses Obama's words against him - Washington Times

Dontcha just hate it when that happens?

The original healthcare bill did not include the mandate. It included a single payer system which would have cut out the health insurance companies. The pressure and big bucks from insurance companies insured that a single payer system would not pass. So to get the law passed, Obama backed down. In so doing, he lost a lot of support from Democrats because the bill was not what he promised.

We're starting to hear some rumblings that if the bill were overturn, the next healthcare bill in the offering could be a single payer system if Democrats get control of Congress and the presidency.

None of these fucks will breathe a word about single payer until after 2012, if the dembos win the election. Say it before then and that ass kicking in November will be look like a swedish massage compared to what will happen in 2012.

 

[jillian]

From what I am hearing is that it still will be going to the SC. What was claimed unconstitutional was the insurance mandate. Which in it's own right should kill the whole law but that is yet to be seen.

no. if the court looks at a law, even if it decides that part is unconstitutional (which it isn't unless scalia and his buds continue to be hacks), then only the part that is unconstitutional is struck down.

you'd know that if you weren't just spewing.

Generally that is true, but there are exceptions. Please note that I am not saying that finding the mandate unconstitutional makes the whole law unconstitutional, but there have been cases in the past where an entire law was declared unconstitutional because a fundamental part of it is unconstitutional. Whether this will eventually hold up is for the courts to decide, not you or me.

The only exceptions that exist are when the unconstitutional portion, if there is one, cannot under any circumstances be severed from the body of the law.

For people who claim to hate activist judges, the rightwingnuts sure love *their* activist judges.

I know that if this Court were to actually rely on precedent and do it's job, this law is constitutional. I say that based upon the current state of the law and the rules of stare decisis.That said, I also have no doubt that the rightwingnuts on the Court will strike down the mandate. I also have no doubt that the left side of the bench will uphold the law. That leaves the decision to Justice Kennedy.

But I also know that Judge Vinson's decision doesn't meet any criteria for adjudication that I've ever heard of.

Make you wonder who assigned the case to him in Florida.

 

[Oddball]

Striking down douchey laws doesn't constitute "judicial activism".

Too bad so sad for the medical Marxists.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

no. if the court looks at a law, even if it decides that part is unconstitutional (which it isn't unless scalia and his buds continue to be hacks), then only the part that is unconstitutional is struck down.

The judge is citing the lack of a severability clause in the legislation for voiding the entire package.

 

[jillian]

no. if the court looks at a law, even if it decides that part is unconstitutional (which it isn't unless scalia and his buds continue to be hacks), then only the part that is unconstitutional is struck down.

The judge is citing the lack of a severability clause in the legislation for voiding the entire package.

i know. and there's no such concept in law.

it's bogus.

 

[bucs90]

Breaking in Florida. Florida judge rules Obamacare unConstitutional. He called the mandate to buy a product from a private company unConstitutional, and then ruled that because the entire law is based on that mandate, the entire bill is thrown out.

Huge. But just the next dominoe in the collapse of modern liberalism.

merged-del

 

[WillowTree]

no. if the court looks at a law, even if it decides that part is unconstitutional (which it isn't unless scalia and his buds continue to be hacks), then only the part that is unconstitutional is struck down.

The judge is citing the lack of a severability clause in the legislation for voiding the entire package.

i know. and there's no such concept in law.

it's bogus.

Does he know it's bogus? We better get on the phones.

 

[bucs90]

This is huge. Obamacare is dead. Feds cannot ignore a federal court's ruling. Unless we're back in the civil rights days when the feds ignore federal courts. Obama, what do you do now? Just quit.

 

[xotoxi]

Since the judge declared the law unconstitutional, what happens to the parts of the law that have been implemented? For example, the law includes a provision that Seniors that fall into the Medicare drug coverage gap get a 50% discount on brand name drugs. This part of the law has been implemented and it effects millions of seniors this year. In fact, there are probably a number of seriously ill seniors that are using this part of law now. There are also several other parts of the law that have been implemented.

They will have to refund their prescription drug plans (with interest) within 90 days.

 

[Bfgrn]

Breaking in Florida. Florida judge rules Obamacare unConstitutional. He called the mandate to buy a product from a private company unConstitutional, and then ruled that because the entire law is based on that mandate, the entire bill is thrown out.

Huge. But just the next dominoe in the collapse of modern liberalism.

The health care bill Democrats passed was a carbon copy of the Republican proposal in 1993, which included the BIG Republican idea...the Individual Mandate.

NOW, this will open the door for what progressives passed in the first place...a public option.

 

[boedicca]

Dontcha just hate it when that happens?

The original healthcare bill did not include the mandate. It included a single payer system which would have cut out the health insurance companies. The pressure and big bucks from insurance companies insured that a single payer system would not pass. So to get the law passed, Obama backed down. In so doing, he lost a lot of support from Democrats because the bill was not what he promised.

We're starting to hear some rumblings that if the bill were overturn, the next healthcare bill in the offering could be a single payer system if Democrats get control of Congress and the presidency.

Yeah...And if monkeys fly out my ass.

I've heard that "monkeys flying out of ass" is one of the new pre-existing conditions which will be covered by ObamaCare!

 

[Meister]

This is huge. Obamacare is dead. Feds cannot ignore a federal court's ruling. Unless we're back in the civil rights days when the feds ignore federal courts. Obama, what do you do now? Just quit.

It's not dead....it's just going to end up in the Supreme Court, probably fast tracked.

 

[boedicca]

This is huge. Obamacare is dead. Feds cannot ignore a federal court's ruling. Unless we're back in the civil rights days when the feds ignore federal courts. Obama, what do you do now? Just quit.

It's not dead....it's just going to end up in the Supreme Court, probably fast tracked.

The sooner the better.

 

[WorldWatcher]

i know. and there's no such concept in law.

it's bogus.

Sorry Jillian, servability has been a legal concept which has existed in the law for a very long time.

"Severability doctrine is well-settled. Once a court has concluded
that a statute contains unconstitutional provisions or applications, the
doctrine provides that the court should sever the unconstitutional
parts unless the legislature would not have intended the valid ones to
stand alone."​

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/stdg/gwlr/issues/pdf/Gans 76-3.pdf


Ultimately it goes back to Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, Severability Clauses are a means for Congress to establish for the courts "such exceptions" as they desire.



2000 pages and someone forgot to put the Serverability Clause in it?

>>>>

 

[boedicca]

Well duh. The games about whether or not to include a severability clause were one of the few transparent aspects of how ObamaCare was passed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.

you can like it all you want. it's not an accurate statement of law that any responsible jurist would put forth.

So know you know more then Federal Judges? And you want to lecture us on the Constitution?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

no. if the court looks at a law, even if it decides that part is unconstitutional (which it isn't unless scalia and his buds continue to be hacks), then only the part that is unconstitutional is struck down.

The judge is citing the lack of a severability clause in the legislation for voiding the entire package.

i know. and there's no such concept in law.

it's bogus.

I have a hard time believing that a federal judge who has been on the bench for 40 years doesn't know the law.

 

[The Rabbi]

no. if the court looks at a law, even if it decides that part is unconstitutional (which it isn't unless scalia and his buds continue to be hacks), then only the part that is unconstitutional is struck down.

The judge is citing the lack of a severability clause in the legislation for voiding the entire package.

Details details. What the hell does an experienced federal judge know, anyway? Just ask Jillian, keeper of the toilet paper at some law firm.

 

[del]

"I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

"I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

Yep, I specifically remember him criticizing Hillary Clinton and John Edwards for wanting to mandate the purchase of health insurance. Another one of Obama's many lies on the campaign trail.