Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

[Oddball]

Remember the good old days when the Right used to ridicule the Left with the line that the left used the courts to do what they couldn't get done legislatively??

Yes you do remember that.

The court didn't legislate in this case, puddinhead.

Work on your memory.

 

[Trajan]

My understanding is when Congress writes a law they insert a clause saying if one part is found unconstitutional the rest of the law can be separated from the part. Here they neglected to do so. So the entire law must be struck down if one part is unconstitutional.

Didn't the left-nuts tell us all this suing in court was a waste of taxpayer money, that the law would never be found unconstitutional?

it is called "severability".......It's usually inserted into legislation to insure that if any part or part of the bill is stripped out, the rest will remain.
When the Obamacare bill was written, the serverability clause was inadvertently left out.

It wasn't inadvertently left out - Pelosi and Reid left it out on purpose as part of their legislative gamesmanship.

and there ya go. Now its the "wing nuts" fault they ran around and screwed things up because at the end of the day they were clueless, because- cit was all about winning.

 

[Oddball]

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

sure it is..you just don't like it...
Look, you need to go bake cookies.
anyone who keeps themselves as uninformed as you AND quotes Springsteen, needs to find a hobby...Like crochet or knitting.

Liberals....riding the short bus to mediocrity.

you know, if you knew what you were talking about, i'd actually address you. but i can tell you there is no precedent for the assertion that the severability clause MUST be included. it's presumed to exist.

Anarchist!

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Oh...I get it....Because certain SC justices may decide Obamacare or parts thereof would be unconstitutional, that in and of itself makes them out to be "hacks"...
You are incorrect, sweetie pie..The bill did not contain the severability clause and therefore if one part is struck down the entire law is stuck down.
Liberals...Riding the short bus to mediocrity

 

[Flopper]

I suspect if the Supreme Court overturns this thing, there is going to be a pretty strong backlash when people come to realize that the country is back to square one. I'm sure the right will proclaim the country and the greatest healthcare system in the world is saved ignoring the people that can't get insurance and the rising number of bankruptcy due to healthcare costs.

 

[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.

Oh...I get it....Because certain SC justices may decide Obamacare or parts thereof would be unconstitutional, that in and of itself makes them out to be "hacks"...
You are incorrect, sweetie pie..The bill did not contain the severability clause and therefore if one part is struck down the entire law is stuck down.
Liberals...Riding the short bus to mediocrity

no. you don't get it.

and frankly, someone as ignorant as you patronizing me is kind of funny.

 

[Political Junky]

If the Supreme Court finds against the bill, it will open the way for Medicare for all. That's what I'd prefer anyway.

 

[thereisnospoon]

or maybe the rightwingers should know what's in it before opining?

you know, given they keep repeating the same lies over and over.

0bamacare is now officially unconstitutional...

Umm, no it isn't.

Yes it is..Until a higher court says differently.
This will undoubtedly follow the path to the federal district then to the US SC...
The SC is the highest level in the judicial branch...If they decide the law is unconstitutional, then that is that...Game over.
Or the SC can refuse to hear the case and let stand a lower court ruling.

 

[RDD_1210]

0bamacare is now officially unconstitutional...

Umm, no it isn't.

Yes it is..Until a higher court says differently.
This will undoubtedly follow the path to the federal district then to the US SC...
The SC is the highest level in the judicial branch...If they decide the law is unconstitutional, then that is that...Game over.
Or the SC can refuse to hear the case and let stand a lower court ruling.

Ummm what about the 2 other judges who said it was constitutional? Conveniently forget about those?

 

[jillian]

don't confuse him with facts.

 

[thereisnospoon]

or maybe the rightwingers should know what's in it before opining?

you know, given they keep repeating the same lies over and over.

What lies?

Apparently the authors of the bill didn't think about the Constitutional ramifications of, well, ramming it down our throats....


0bamacare is now officially unconstitutional...

the law isn't unconstitjutional by any measure given prior precedent.

what lies? really?

that it's 'job killing'
that it's unconstitutional
that there are death panels.

it's a whole bunch of stupid when a bunch of idiots run on a platform of taking health coverage away from kids.

what what the hell... right?

and what i do know is vinson's decision has no basis iaw where it says that the whole bill has to be thrown out.

that's one of the dumbest comments i've ever heard a judge make.... ever.

and why is the bill officially "unconsitutional" because two lower court judges don't like it.

two do.

bfd.

you're smarter than that.

oh yes...The "it's for the children" argument...Please stop the nonsense.
As of right now, the law is unconstitutional. Each higher court that hears the case and renders a decision will decide whether or not the law is constitutional...
You'll juts have to accept the procedures as they stand. And for now, the properly adjudicated decision by Judge Vinson states Obamacare is unconstitutional. Stop insisting.

 

[JFK_USA]

Yep, you liberals would know judicial activism wouldnt ya?

Ya'll are guilty of it FAR MORE than the right EVER thought of being.

Bullshit...Citizens United is the biggest piece of judicial activism in history...

Any decision you don't agree with is "judicial activism"...

Same with you buddy. Don't you think that the judge in California, A Bush appointee, ruled gay marriage bans unconstitutional is doing judical activism?

 

[Trajan]

Remember the good old days when the Right used to ridicule the Left with the line that the left used the courts to do what they couldn't get done legislatively??

Yes you do remember that.

the hypocrisy that is the White House now whining about judicial activism has been noted already.

 

[Dr.House]

Bullshit...Citizens United is the biggest piece of judicial activism in history...

Any decision you don't agree with is "judicial activism"...

Same with you buddy. Don't you think that the judge in California, A Bush appointee, ruled gay marriage bans unconstitutional is doing judical activism?

I'm not your buddy and I don't give a shit about gay marriage...

 

[Charles_Main]

Fine, strike down the mandate. One step closer to single payer. Watch what you wish for.

Single payer was a loser. Like you.

You forget, Lefties do not care if something is extremely unpopular. They will ram it through anyways.

 

[jillian]

What lies?

Apparently the authors of the bill didn't think about the Constitutional ramifications of, well, ramming it down our throats....


0bamacare is now officially unconstitutional...

the law isn't unconstitjutional by any measure given prior precedent.

what lies? really?

that it's 'job killing'
that it's unconstitutional
that there are death panels.

it's a whole bunch of stupid when a bunch of idiots run on a platform of taking health coverage away from kids.

what what the hell... right?

and what i do know is vinson's decision has no basis iaw where it says that the whole bill has to be thrown out.

that's one of the dumbest comments i've ever heard a judge make.... ever.

and why is the bill officially "unconsitutional" because two lower court judges don't like it.

two do.

bfd.

you're smarter than that.

oh yes...The "it's for the children" argument...Please stop the nonsense.
As of right now, the law is unconstitutional. Each higher court that hears the case and renders a decision will decide whether or not the law is constitutional...
You'll juts have to accept the procedures as they stand. And for now, the properly adjudicated decision by Judge Vinson states Obamacare is unconstitutional. Stop insisting.

you don't know what you're talking about.

two district courts struck it down. two upheld it.

nothing has happened. there is no stay on the law at this point.

it will go to the respective circuit courts of appeal. if there is still disagreement between the circuits (and i suspect there will be) it will go to the supreme court where the cases will be consolidated and ruled upon.

thanks for your input.

and don't quit your day job.

 

[Charles_Main]

Same with you buddy. Don't you think that the judge in California, A Bush appointee, ruled gay marriage bans unconstitutional is doing judical activism?

Um not if the ruling fit with the Constitution. Judicial Activism is when you attempt to redefine the meaning of the law with your rulings.

Like the 2 judges who ruled in Obamacares Favor did when they upheld the Bogus ass claim that the Mandate is justified under the commerce clause.

The 2 Judges who ruled against it know the truth, that if the government can justify forcing to you buy health insurance under the commerce clause. They can force you to do or Buy just about anything under the same mantra.

A massive and unacceptable expansion of Federal Power is what that would be.

 

[jillian]

Same with you buddy. Don't you think that the judge in California, A Bush appointee, ruled gay marriage bans unconstitutional is doing judical activism?

Um not if the ruling fit with the Constitution. Judicial Activism is when you attempt to redefine the meaning of the law with your rulings.

Like the 2 judges who ruled in Obamacares Favor did when they upheld the Bogus ass claim that the Mandate is justified under the commerce clause.

The 2 Judges who ruled against it know the truth, that if the government can justify forcing to you buy health insurance under the commerce clause. They can force you to do or Buy just about anything under the same mantra.

A massive and unacceptable expansion of Federal Power is what that would be.

in other words, if you disagree, it is activism.

 

[Trajan]

well, let us suppose that the mandate doesn't survive and that the rest of the bill is free to go forward....so, what does that do to the financial backing the whole magilla?

The Democrats have made many many many claims that the mandate is a 'linchpin", an imperative and crucial to the bill.....

so? if no one buys and is fined or taxed, then what?

 

[thereisnospoon]

So...he ruled that medicaid wasn't unconstitutional but the health care bill is unconstitutional.



I cannot wait to see him declare medicare is unconstitutional...the republicans will be in trash bin of history.

WTF does medicare have to do with this?.....NOTHING...Nice try though.

Liberals....riding the short bus to mediocrity