Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Go to the Romper Room. Adults are talking...

a foolish and sad attempt to silence your opposition...
Interesting how you know where the kiddies hang out....
I think you should be investigated by the authorities....

liberals....riding the short bus to mediocrity.

 

[jillian]

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

if you had any understanding of the constitutional caselaw, you'd understand that medicare is based on the same constitutional premise as the insurance mandate.

you're not very bright are you?

but keep repeating that same stupid sentence. it just accentuates how insipid you are.

 

[Political Junky]

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

It means we might have Medicare for everyone. Woohoo.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Medicare is a stand-alone gubint monopoly program...It doesn't force anyone to buy insurance from one of numerous private providers.

You lose.

 

[jillian]

Had it just been that I'd have been all aboard the 0bamacare bandwagon....

what negatively impacts on you? and don't tell me it's b/c you'd be forced to buy insurance. i'd put money on you already being insured.

Why does it have to impact me personally to have an opinion on it?

because you'd destroy everything good about the law for no reason.

the part you don't like is what pays for the rest of it.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.

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?

Never believe the left.

 

[Oddball]

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

if you had any understanding of the constitutional caselaw, you'd understand that medicare is based on the same constitutional premise as the insurance mandate.

you're not very bright are you?

but keep repeating that same stupid sentence. it just accentuates how insipid you are.

I repeat:

Medicare is a stand-alone gubint monopoly program...It doesn't force anyone to buy insurance from one of numerous private providers.

The insipidity is all yours.

 

[WillowTree]

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

It means we might have Medicare for everyone. Woohoo.

Just not everyone has to pay for it. that's why you stole 960 billion dollars from those who had paid for it.. whoooo hooo. Thieves.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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

Typical socialist games. I wish obama would resign....waiting.....

 

[Political Junky]

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.

Medicare is a stand-alone gubint monopoly program...It doesn't force anyone to buy insurance from one of numerous private providers.

You lose.

Exactly, we'd all be able to enroll in Medicare, and private insurance could compete.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

not that stare decisis means anything to you or that you even know what it is.

then go find THAT particular case which sets legal precedent from which you draw your conclusion. "There is no precedent"....This is demanding one prove a negative. If you are indeed involved in some way with the legal profession, you know darned well that is not how it works. BTW, "there is no precedent" reminds me of AlGore's famous "no controlling legal authority" line.....
As of now, you're just spitballing in the hopes that someone will agree with you.
And please put down the thesaurus. I can just as easily look up 50 cent words and post them here to make myself appear learned....Get it?..
BTW, I DO know....That's because before I post , I check the details on which I am not certain.
You refuted the judge's opinion based on your understanding. He based his ruling on 40 years of experience.
Let us suppose for a moment, this judge ruled on a case where his decision, as you believe, is flawed yet agreed with your ideology, would you disagree with the decision with the same zeal as you do this one?.....Be honest. Your credibility on this board hangs in the balance.

 

[Dr.House]

what negatively impacts on you? and don't tell me it's b/c you'd be forced to buy insurance. i'd put money on you already being insured.

Why does it have to impact me personally to have an opinion on it?

because you'd destroy everything good about the law for no reason.

the part you don't like is what pays for the rest of it.

Get rid of the whole thing and write something that IS constitutional....


Why should a healthy 20-something be forced to by insurance he doesn't want or need?

Are we going to start requiring city-dwelling high risers who don't own cars to buy auto insurance anyway to pay for the idiots who drive around without it?

 

[AmericanFirst]

0bamacare just got smacked...

Perhaps Harry & Nancy should have read it before passing it....

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

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

Repeating the same lies over and over again is obama's and the lefts tactics. How can you tell when a dimwit is lying? His lips are moving.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

I stand corrected..thank you. Bottom line is the clause is missing, correct?

 

[The Rabbi]

Severability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lets talk latin it sounds cool..........salvatorius clause,(Severability)-The severability clause is the name for a clause that regulates the legal consequences or the applicability of the remaining clauses of a contract when some clauses of a contract are or become ineffective or infeasible. The goal of the severability clause is usually to maintain the spirit of the contract as much as possible.

Severability clauses are sometimes used in statutes, to preserve the effectiveness of certain portions of the statute if some part is struck down as unconstitutional by a court exercising in judicial review.

Salvatorius clause | Ask.com Encyclopedia

and as we have discovered they themselves ( Democrats) alone were responsible for its absence, period. I am actually surprised as Obama said he was infinitely knowledgeable as to the bill that he, a constitutional proff.... oops, lecturer, didn't catch the omission.

that isn't what i meant. perhaps i didn't make myself clear. there is NO REQUIREMENT IN LAW THAT THERE BE a severability clause. I know what such a clause is. they do cover such things in con law classes.

Were you cleaning the toilet while the prof was lecturing that day?
You are backtracking because you have exposed your ignorance. It is obvious that there is no requirement to have a severability clause.

 

[RDD_1210]

0bamacare just got smacked...

Perhaps Harry & Nancy should have read it before passing it....

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

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

Repeating the same lies over and over again is obama's and the lefts tactics. How can you tell when a dimwit is lying? His lips are moving.

Woah, did you come up with that on your own??

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

Obamacare is unconstitutional because the united states gov't. cannot mandate that you buy something, that is socialism. Obama is an idiot just like reid and pelosi and anybody who supports the.

 

[thereisnospoon]

that's your characterization. i don't share it.

like i said, two courts said yea, two said nay. that's life.

no matter how happy the rightwingnuts are.

I wont be happy till that POS bill is in the trash heap of history!

then you're a very good rightwing soldier.

tell me how much you hate the fact that insurance companies can't exclude people for pre-existing conditions.

i'll wait.

Health insurance should be available to everyone. even those with pre-existing conditions.
The insured would be covered for other ailments than the pre existing. If they wish coverage for the pre-existing, they can pay for a high deductable rider on that.
But I'll be damend if I have to fund coverage for those conditions which are the result of poor eating habits, smoking, drug abuse or any other self inflicted disease or injury.
I cannot burn down my house then take out an insurance policy on it.
Look, this Obamacare law does nothing to protect those with pre-existing conditions. The insurance carriers are not going to write policies for those people. Pre-exists will be forced to the government exchange. And THAT is the untended purpose of Obamacare. The lone purpose of Obamacare is to move as many people as possible over to the government plan. This is intentional as it will create dependency on government.
In every single socialized medicine country, care is rationed and it comes at a very high cost. Most, if not all of the western European socialized meds countries have systems that are deeply in debt.
Why is it you are so interested in seeing the federal government take over the medical care industry and put the private health insurers out of business? Are you not concerned about the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the insurance industry will lose their jobs?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Last page....

So what about the two judges who ruled it wasn't unconstitutional? Their decisions make it official too?

No, they were probably leftwing socialist judges anyway, they were wrong.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I particularly like the "entire law must be declared void" part.

I wonder if he read the law before ruling on it....

More likely he did, unlike the idiots in d.c.