Federal Appeals Court Upholds ObamaCare

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A federal appeals court in Cincinnati has upheld President Obama's health care law, the Associated Press reports.

The three-judge panel delivered a long opinion Wednesday with disagreement on some issues. But it affirmed a Michigan federal judge's earlier ruling that Congress can require Americans to have minimum insurance coverage.

Federal Appeals court in Cincinnati upholds Obama health care law -

Of course, we all knew this was going to be their ruling. Two of the three judges were Obama appointees. It will now be appealed to the Supreme Court where it will be struck down as unconstitutional by a 5-4 decision, I predict.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't think there's any doubt this is going to the supreme court. Kennedy will probably end up being the swing vote, again, but I have no idea where he stands on the commerce clause etc.

 

[JimH52]

A federal appeals court in Cincinnati has upheld President Obama's health care law, the Associated Press reports.

The three-judge panel delivered a long opinion Wednesday with disagreement on some issues. But it affirmed a Michigan federal judge's earlier ruling that Congress can require Americans to have minimum insurance coverage.

Federal Appeals court in Cincinnati upholds Obama health care law -

Of course, we all knew this was going to be their ruling. Two of the three judges were Obama appointees. It will now be appealed to the Supreme Court where it will be struck down as unconstitutional by a 5-4 decision, I predict.

Wrong...two of the judges were appointed by Republicans.'

A key part of the ruling was written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton -- a President George W. Bush appointee and considered a conservative on the court. He said the health care field is different from other streams of "commerce."

"Regulating how citizens pay for what they already receive (health care), never quite know when they will need, and in the case of severe illnesses or emergencies generally will not be able to afford, has few (if any) parallels in modern life. Not every intrusive law is an unconstitutionally intrusive law," he said. "Time assuredly will bring to light the policy strengths and weaknesses of using the individual mandate as part of this national legislation, allowing the peoples' political representatives, rather than their judges, to have the primary say over its utility."

Sutton added, "The government has the better of the arguments." He was supported by Judge Boyce Martin -- who is considered a liberal and was named to the bench by President Carter. He turned aside the argument by opponents of the law that economic "inactivity" cannot be regulated by the national legislature.

"Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act's larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance," he said. "The provision regulates active participation in the health care market, and in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity."

Judge James Graham -- a Reagan appointee -- agreed with most of the opinion but expressed some concern Congress could go too far in other economic arenas, under limits imposed by the Constitution's commerce and spending clauses.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Wrong...two of the judges were appointed by Republicans.'

Sorry. I was thinking of the case that's before the Fourth Circuit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think there's any doubt this is going to the supreme court. Kennedy will probably end up being the swing vote, again, but I have no idea where he stands on the commerce clause etc.

I am surprised they ruled at all, the woman lacked standing because she now has health insurance. When it goes to the full court they will probably dismiss the entire suit for lack of standing.

 

[Avorysuds]

Big blow to Obama in a damned if they do damned if they don't scenario. Now Republicans many independents and still many liberals will be eager to get someone in the WH that will do away with the unconstitutional law.

 

[dblack]

Of course, we all knew this was going to be their ruling. Two of the three judges were Obama appointees. It will now be appealed to the Supreme Court where it will be struck down as unconstitutional by a 5-4 decision, I predict.

I wish I shared your optimism.

 

[JimH52]

Big blow to Obama in a damned if they do damned if they don't scenario. Now Republicans many independents and still many liberals will be eager to get someone in the WH that will do away with the unconstitutional law.

OKay, give me a hint. Did you read the article or are you delusional? Two republican appointed judges upheld the HC law. Explain why this is a blow to Obama.

 

[JimH52]

Of course, we all knew this was going to be their ruling. Two of the three judges were Obama appointees. It will now be appealed to the Supreme Court where it will be struck down as unconstitutional by a 5-4 decision, I predict.

I wish I shared your optimism.

No, two of the judges were appointed by GW and Reagan. So much for the "partisan judge" argument.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The ruling for those interested.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/6th-CA-ruling-on-ACA-6-29-11.pdf

(and the post deleted if the threads merged)

 

[JimH52]

Big blow to Obama in a damned if they do damned if they don't scenario. Now Republicans many independents and still many liberals will be eager to get someone in the WH that will do away with the unconstitutional law.

OKay, give me a hint. Did you read the article or are you delusional? Two republican appointed judges upheld the HC law. Explain why this is a blow to Obama.

Still waiting...

 

[Sheldon]

I don't think there's any doubt this is going to the supreme court. Kennedy will probably end up being the swing vote, again, but I have no idea where he stands on the commerce clause etc.

I am surprised they ruled at all, the woman lacked standing because she now has health insurance. When it goes to the full court they will probably dismiss the entire suit for lack of standing.

wElll I'm not a great lega; mond or anytinh, bug does lack os standing matter as much in an appelate case?

 

[JimH52]

I don't think there's any doubt this is going to the supreme court. Kennedy will probably end up being the swing vote, again, but I have no idea where he stands on the commerce clause etc.

I am surprised they ruled at all, the woman lacked standing because she now has health insurance. When it goes to the full court they will probably dismiss the entire suit for lack of standing.

wElll I'm not a great lega; mond or anytinh, bug does lack os standing matter as much in an appelate case?

A good indication of a probable ruling at the High Court level can be deduced from a panel of three federal judges ruling it is constitutional. Especially when two of the three were appointed by Republican Presidents.