Supreme Court Bound! Health Care Reform Law Unconstitutional

[PoliticalChic]

RICHMOND, Va. – A federal judge in Virginia has declared the Obama administration's health care reform law unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.

He argues the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement.

Other lawsuits are pending, including one filed by 20 states in a Florida court. Virginia is not part of that lawsuit.

The U.S. Justice Department and opponents of the health care law agree that the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word.


Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law - Yahoo! News

 

[Intense]

Step 1.

 

[Liability]

Wait. You mean the Commerce Clause CANNOT properly be read to tell us that we are OBLIGED to buy health insurance?

Hell. If judges keep issuing decisions like that, sooner or later you know what we're gonna have to confront?

That's right: actual liberty!

Kudos to Judge Hudson.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is a good thing and may ultimately be what preserves our Constitutional government as many of us perceive it as intended to be. Or at least slow down the erosion of it.

I hope we can keep this thread alive to use as the other suits in other states are decided right up to the time the High Court will be obliged to deal with it.

 

[blastoff]

At least a case will now be heading in the right direction so we can hopefully eventually get the SCOTUS to put Obamacare in the crapper where it belongs.

 

[Intense]

We also need to get past precedent, using logic and reason, there is nothing that is untouchable by virtue of it having already decided on in the past, not when it trespasses the boundary of legitimacy.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Va. federal judge strikes down health care law - Politics - More politics - msnbc.com

msnbc.com news services
updated 10 minutes ago 2010-12-13T17:31:15

WASHINGTON — A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Virginia Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli filed a separate lawsuit in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance. However, the key issue was his claim that the federal law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional.


Well whaddya know? The courts confirmed what many of us already knew.

 

[Meister]

I hope I don't see this healthcare bill end up being a tax.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

The Obama administration’s requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy insurance, a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the president’s plan.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia, said today that the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health-care legislation goes beyond Congress’s powers to regulate interstate commerce. While severing the coverage mandate, Hudson didn’t address other provisions such as expanding Medicaid that are unrelated to it. He didn't order the government to stop work on putting the remainder of the law into effect.

Obama's Health-Care Law Ruled Unconstitutional Over Insurance Requirement - Bloomberg

 

[jillian]

We also need to get past precedent, using logic and reason, there is nothing that is untouchable by virtue of it having already decided on in the past, not when it trespasses the boundary of legitimacy.

it hasn't "tresspasse[d] the bound of legitimacy" if it's been decided by the Court. and while it can be reconsidered, there has to be a basis for a reconsideration.

i doubt the supremes are going to mess with the commerce clause...

no matter what a dubya appointee says.

 

[hjmick]

Oh damn...

 

[rightwinger]

Let me pull out my crystal ball......

If it goes to the Supreme Court it will lose.......ummm lets see...5-4

 

[RDD_1210]

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?

Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.

Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....

 

[DiamondDave]

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?

Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.

Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....

Nothing is stopping the deadbeats from getting insurance now.. and there are ways to collect from people who do not pay their bills... and if the deadbeats had no $ for insurance or bills anyway, then they cannot afford even Obamacare... that is, until it comes to pass that the contributors are required to pay for the insurance of non-contributors... which is also a huge overstep of power

 

[Intense]

Merged.

 

[loosecannon]

I don't know that it will go to the SC anytime soon. This decision was a slam dunk. As obvious as it could be.

The SC will be petitioned but I bet they let the ruling stand without hearing the case.

 

[loosecannon]

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?

Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.

What are you talking about? Requiring healthy people to buy private insurance is a subsidy for sick people and Medicare. It's exactly the opposite of what you describe.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Oh damn...

Indeed....

 

[Foxfyre]

We also need to get past precedent, using logic and reason, there is nothing that is untouchable by virtue of it having already decided on in the past, not when it trespasses the boundary of legitimacy.

it hasn't "tresspasse[d] the bound of legitimacy" if it's been decided by the Court. and while it can be reconsidered, there has to be a basis for a reconsideration.

Apparently there is a basis for reconsideration though, most especially if most courts are coming down on the side of the requirement being unconstitutional.

Nobody is saying Congress has no authority to pass laws re healthcare policy. But the idea that the government would assume authority to require any of us to buy a specific product for ANY reason is seen by many of us as hostile to our liberties and gives goverment way more power than any freedom loving person thinks it should have.

If the government is allowed to get away with this, it will set a precedent that will encourage them to require more and more 'mandates' for our 'own good'. I don't want the government deciding for me what is for my own good.

 

[jillian]

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?

Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.

What are you talking about? Requiring healthy people to buy private insurance is a subsidy for sick people and Medicare. It's exactly the opposite of what you describe.

no.. it's to make sure that the good parts of the law get paid for. plain and simple. it's called spreading around the cost. there are many such affirmative requirements. thinking this one is separate and apart seems disingenuous.