Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Judges on a federal appeals court panel on Wednesday repeatedly raised questions about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, expressing unease with the requirement that virtually all Americans carry health insurance or face penalties.All three judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel questioned whether upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates. The panel is made up of two Democratic appointees and one Republican appointee.
The Atlanta panel did not immediately rule on the lawsuit brought by 26 states, a coalition of small businesses and private individuals who urged the three to side with a Florida judge who struck down the law. And it's never easy to predict how an appeals panel will decide.
But during almost three hours of oral arguments, the judges asked pointed questions about the so-called individual mandate, which the federal government says is needed to expand coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. With other challenges to the law before other federal appeals courts, lawyers expect that its fate will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
And by "the court", you and the author mean one member of panel (since that's the only one he ever quotes).
What both you and the author of the article fail to realize is that asking a question about something doesn't equal agreeing with the premise of the question.
What both you and the author of the article fail to realize is that asking a question about something doesn't equal agreeing with the premise of the question.
Where did I say it did? The thing is that everyone that heard the arguments thinks the signs are bad, but feel free to live in Polkland if you like.
This is a bipartisan panel, and none of them like the mandate.
Judges on a federal appeals court panel on Wednesday repeatedly raised questions about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, expressing unease with the requirement that virtually all Americans carry health insurance or face penalties.All three judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel questioned whether upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates. The panel is made up of two Democratic appointees and one Republican appointee.
The Atlanta panel did not immediately rule on the lawsuit brought by 26 states, a coalition of small businesses and private individuals who urged the three to side with a Florida judge who struck down the law. And it's never easy to predict how an appeals panel will decide.
But during almost three hours of oral arguments, the judges asked pointed questions about the so-called individual mandate, which the federal government says is needed to expand coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. With other challenges to the law before other federal appeals courts, lawyers expect that its fate will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Associated Press: US judges seem receptive to health care challenge
What both you and the author of the article fail to realize is that asking a question about something doesn't equal agreeing with the premise of the question.
Where did I say it did? The thing is that everyone that heard the arguments thinks the signs are bad, but feel free to live in Polkland if you like.
You said it in the title of the thread.
What both you and the author of the article fail to realize is that asking a question about something doesn't equal agreeing with the premise of the question.
Where did I say it did? The thing is that everyone that heard the arguments thinks the signs are bad, but feel free to live in Polkland if you like.
You said it in the title of the thread.
Where did I say it did? The thing is that everyone that heard the arguments thinks the signs are bad, but feel free to live in Polkland if you like.
You said it in the title of the thread.
It looks bad for the Obamacare mandate is saying that questions prove that they are going to rule a certain way?
And by "the court", you and the author mean one member of panel (since that's the only one he ever quotes).
All there judges on the panel questioned the mandate.
By the way, the article mentions specifically that two of them asked about removing the mandate from the complete law. Thanks for showing your slant though.
You said it in the title of the thread.
It looks bad for the Obamacare mandate is saying that questions prove that they are going to rule a certain way?
Yes. The implication of your statement was that the judges on this panel are leaning toward ruling against the law.
To extrapolate an outcome predicated on one oral argument in one venue is naïve at best, ignorant at worst.
The Affordable Care Act is back in court on Wednesday, with the government and a coalition of 26 states presenting arguments in an Atlanta courtroom for and against the constitutionality of the law. There are dozens of similar cases currently winding their way through federal courts, but the ruling that comes out of Atlanta could be the strongest indicator yet of whether the ACA will ultimately be allowed to stand.
So far, all of the federal district judges that have ruled on the constitutionality of the ACA's individual mandate the centerpiece to most legal challenges have matched the generally held opinion of the party of the President who appointed them. Democrat-appointed judges have ruled that the ACA is perfectly fine; Republican-appointed judges have ruled that it violates the constitution.
There haven't been any decisions yet at the appellate level, although most court watchers are expecting the Fourth Circuit in Virginia to say the law is constitutional. The reason: All three judges on the randomly selected panel chosen to rule on the case happened to have been appointed by Democrats. See the pattern? Until we see a ruling in which a Republican-appointed judge says the law is constitutional or a Democrat-appointed judge says it's not, we're left with little indication about the law's final fate. (We're also left with the impression that the supposed impartial jurists of the federal court system are far more political than we would sometimes like to believe.)
