Supreme Court Bound! Health Care Reform Law Unconstitutional

[The Rabbi]

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

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

Weren't you the one saying this was just a waste of taxpayer money for state AG;s to fight the law? That the law was obviously Constitutional?
Well, I guess we can add that to your other sterling predictions for 2010.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Now if congress uses their brains for once they will add this to the results of the November elections and realize they screwed the pooch on this one. They forgot that the intent was to lower health care premiums and instead decided to simply take control. Maybe they will throw out the whole mess and try again. Only this time actually do something right.

 

[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.

NUTS!!!

I got moded into another thread by 29 minuts. That's what I get for taking my time. pfft.

 

[jillian]

Now if congress uses their brains for once they will add this to the results of the November elections and realize they screwed the pooch on this one. They forgot that the intent was to lower health care premiums and instead decided to simply take control. Maybe they will throw out the whole mess and try again. Only this time actually do something right.

Why would one decision from one district court judge cause congress to do anything?

 

[The Infidel]

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.....

Problem is.... the deadbeats wont be paying their own way, and are'nt paying their own way.....

We as taxpayers will be paying it for them already......

Those who chose & still choose to not have HC insurance can get in line with all the medicare medicaid recipients (which we are already paying for).... I have been to an ER and saw firsthand the illegals who cant speak english, or the crackhead with a lung infection and no way to pay for their habit.... ALL OF WHOM HAVE A CELLPHONE... but yet they cant afford basic insurance coverage for their family.... whatever!!!!!

 

[The Infidel]

Now if congress uses their brains for once they will add this to the results of the November elections and realize they screwed the pooch on this one. They forgot that the intent was to lower health care premiums and instead decided to simply take control. Maybe they will throw out the whole mess and try again. Only this time actually do something right.

Why would one decision from one district court judge cause congress to do anything?

Its a step (all be it a baby step) in the right direction.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Now if congress uses their brains for once they will add this to the results of the November elections and realize they screwed the pooch on this one. They forgot that the intent was to lower health care premiums and instead decided to simply take control. Maybe they will throw out the whole mess and try again. Only this time actually do something right.

Why would one decision from one district court judge cause congress to do anything?

I believe this will snowball. But as always, I could be wrong....

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The right (unlike the left) is also kind of big on this thing called personal liberty.

That's not true at all. Does outlawing abortion advance personal liberty? Does keeping Don't Ask Don't Tell in place advance personal liberty? Is wanting to make it illegal to burn the flag advancing personal liberty?

The right is just as bad as the left when it comes to personal liberty.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.....

Nonsense?

WOW, you really are in favor of a government run anything you want.

So what do we do with the people that can't afford to buy "enough" insurance or pay the fine?

If your wondering what happens, don't, they get put in jail, for theft.

 

[jillian]

The right (unlike the left) is also kind of big on this thing called personal liberty.

That's not true at all. Does outlawing abortion advance personal liberty? Does keeping Don't Ask Don't Tell in place advance personal liberty? Is wanting to make it illegal to burn the flag advancing personal liberty?

The right is just as bad as the left when it comes to personal liberty.

there is some of that. but its the right that seems to pick and choose from the constitution.

and i wonder what is a more fundamental right... control over our bodies and the ability to not be discriminated against by marriage laws

or having to wear a seat belt or pay for health insurance?

 

[Steerpike]

there is some of that. but its the right that seems to pick and choose from the constitution.

and i wonder what is a more fundamental right... control over our bodies and the ability to not be discriminated against by marriage laws

or having to wear a seat belt or pay for health insurance?

Near as I can tell, the left and right both pick and choose from the Constitution according to the things they want to control. Not much difference between them in that regard, except of course that they pick different things.

 

[Dr.House]

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

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

Weren't you the one saying this was just a waste of taxpayer money for state AG;s to fight the law? That the law was obviously Constitutional?
Well, I guess we can add that to your other sterling predictions for 2010.

Don't blame him...

He went to the "Joke Starkey School of Political Prognostication"...

 

[Foxfyre]

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.....

The right (unlike the left) is also kind of big on this thing called personal liberty.

LOL, right on cue...yeah, your personal liberty which gets to interfere with mine. How noble.

How does my choice to buy or not buy insurance interfere with your liberties in any way? But if a law says I have to buy insurance so you won't have to pay as much for yours, how does that not interfere with my choices, my personal liberty to be insured or not as I choose?

I don't think you should have to pay for my healthcare either if I choose not to buy insurance. The idea that you have no choice but to pay for my healthcare if I don't pay for it myself is, in my opinion, a violation of your civil liberties.

I suggest we all do our homework. Go back to the beginning and research insurance rates, availability of insurance, cost of healthcare etc. BEFORE the government got involved. I think you'll see that every time the government has meddled in the rates or availability of insurance, costs have dramatically escalated for everybody else. More and more physicians are refusing to accept Medicare or Medicaid patients at all because it is forcing them to price the privately insured or self paying patients out of the market.

It would have to be done slowly and carefully just as the government has gradually forced people into dependency on existing programs, but I would like for everybody to consider whether we would all be better off if the government would allow the free market manage healthcare and the government gets out of the business altogether.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Now if congress uses their brains for once they will add this to the results of the November elections and realize they screwed the pooch on this one. They forgot that the intent was to lower health care premiums and instead decided to simply take control. Maybe they will throw out the whole mess and try again. Only this time actually do something right.

Why would one decision from one district court judge cause congress to do anything?

Congess won't do anything unless the Supreme court tosses it.

A smart thing would be to assume the worst and prepare ahead of time. I know I'm not looking forward to this being in the news as much as it was last time

 

[Claudette]

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

That's exactly what's going to happen. It has been such a bullshit argument: "you're forcing me to buy insurance!!!", "the dang gummint can't make me buy dang insurance!!!!" and it's all semantics. Whether they/us call it a 'purchase' or a 'tax' makes no difference.

Well Hell. Don't you remember Barry Boy on National television telling everyone that the HC bill wasn't a tax?? I sure do.

Then came time to pass it and golly gee, guess what, the only way they could do it was TO CALL IT A TAX.

Some pesky questions about the legality and about the SC overruling it. The only way it would fit into that GW clause was as a tax.

 

[Modbert]

1994: In response to Clinton's Healthcare reform, Republicans propose a healthcare mandate.

Health insurance mandate began as a Republican idea - The Boston Globe

2006: Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney signs state level mandate law.

2008: John McCain campaigns on a mandate platform.

2010: Obama and the Democrats concede a mandate to get Republicans onboard.

December 13, 2010: Republicans in Virginia claim victory as the health care mandate is ruled unconstitutional.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-uad6zBG1o[/ame]

 

[Liability]

Landmark Legal Foundation, which my hero Mark Levin runs, just issued a statement regarding Judge Hudson's terrific decision!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Eric Christensen
DECEMBER 13, 2010 (703) 554-6100
(703) 554-6119 (fax)
[email protected]
Landmark Legal Foundation

LANDMARK PRAISES COURT RULING IN VA “OBAMACARE” SUIT

(LEESBURG, VA)… Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, today issued the following statement about the ruling by Federal District Judge Henry E. Hudson, in a lawsuit brought by the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). In granting the Commonwealth’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Hudson declared that the requirement under Obamacare that private citizens purchase private health insurance coverage or face a substantial monetary penalty was unconstitutional.

“Today Judge Hudson ruled against the Obama Administration on three essential points involving Obamacare: 1. Individuals who do not actively participate in commerce -- that is, who do not voluntarily purchase health insurance -- cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the United State Constitution's Commerce Clause, and there is no Supreme Court precedent providing otherwise; 2. The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution cannot be used as a backdoor means to enforce a statute that is not otherwise constitutional under Congress's enumerated powers; and 3. There is a difference between a tax and a penalty, there is much Supreme Court precedent in this regard, and the penalty provision in Obamacare is not a tax but a penalty and, therefore, is unconstitutional for it is applied to individuals who choose not to purchase health care.

“Judge Hudson's ruling against the Obama Administration and for the Commonwealth of Virginia gives hope that the rule of law and the Constitution itself still have meaning. Landmark Legal Foundation has filed several amicus briefs in this case, at the request of the Commonwealth, and will continue to provide support in the likely event the Commonwealth is required to defend this decision in the Fourth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. Landmark would also like to congratulate Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and the excellent lawyers in his office for their superb legal skills.

"It is a great day for the rule of law and the citizenry. Judge Hudson's ruling is ironclad, and General Cuccinelli deserves an enormous amount of credit for taking on this matter. We look forward to continuing to work with him."

Founded in 1976, Landmark Legal Foundation is the leading conservative public interest law firm in the United States.

(END)​

-- http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/obamacare news release.pdf

I was listening to Rush at my office and heard him quote a bit of what Mark Levin said. So I went to Landmark Legal's site to get the full statement and to provide the link for the USMB crowd.

 

[Foxfyre]

there is some of that. but its the right that seems to pick and choose from the constitution.

and i wonder what is a more fundamental right... control over our bodies and the ability to not be discriminated against by marriage laws

or having to wear a seat belt or pay for health insurance?

Near as I can tell, the left and right both pick and choose from the Constitution according to the things they want to control. Not much difference between them in that regard, except of course that they pick different things.

Yes they do pick different things, but it's all in how we see the role of the federal government. I see the proper role of the federal government as being responsible to protect individual liberties and unalienble rights. My rights end, however, at the precise point that you are required to contribute for my benefit in any way. There is no unalienable right to be provided healthcare any more than there is an unalienable right to be provided housing, food, transportation, clothing, or a job. But it requires no conribution from you whatsoever if I seek healthcare or housing or food or transportation or clothing or a job from those willing to give or sell those to me, and I should have equal right with every other citizen to seek those things.

None of that was seen as the responsibility of the federal government until the old notions of socialism started creeping back into the system mostly beginning with the Teddy Roosevelt administration. And it has been escalating ever since.

It's time to put on the brakes and the indefensible healthcare overhaul is a good place to start.

The minute the government steps in and requires you to contribute to my well being, there are likely to be far more unintended negative consequences than there will be positive ones.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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

That's exactly what's going to happen. It has been such a bullshit argument: "you're forcing me to buy insurance!!!", "the dang gummint can't make me buy dang insurance!!!!" and it's all semantics. Whether they/us call it a 'purchase' or a 'tax' makes no difference.

Well Hell. Don't you remember Barry Boy on National television telling everyone that the HC bill wasn't a tax?? I sure do.

Then came time to pass it and golly gee, guess what, the only way they could do it was TO CALL IT A TAX.

Some pesky questions about the legality and about the SC overruling it. The only way it would fit into that GW clause was as a tax.

I simply can't understand why anyone would demand that the government take care of them.

I worked as a csr for an ins co that did med sup D. I, in an office of aroun 230, got an average of 1 call a week where the person would tell me they weren't dead.

Imagine my shock the first time that happend.

Medicare, the wonderfull service that many of us will be on, had "accidentally" declared people dead. oops, sorry, you can't get your life saving meds b/c we cancled your insurance b/c your dead. Oopsie.

It's about a 3 month process to get your insurance back

And this is what people want to force us to pay for?

 

[IHI4eva]

Kudos to Judge Hudson.

Ditto! Good call Liability