Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well no ****... :laughing:

RICHMOND, Va.—A federal court ruled Monday that a central plank of the health law violates the Constitution, dealing the biggest setback yet to the Obama administration's signature legislative accomplishment.

In a 42-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."

The individual mandate "would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers," wrote Judge Hudson, of the Eastern District of Virginia. "At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."

The lawsuit, brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, is the first court ruling against the law since President Barack Obama signed it in March. More than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against the overhaul, and judges in two of those cases ruled in favor of the Obama administration.

While the ruling creates a headache for the law's supporters, it doesn't mean states or the federal government must stop implementing the law.

Judge Hudson didn't grant the plaintiffs' request for an immediate nationwide injunction against the entire law or against the requirement that most Americans carry insurance. That requirement, known as the individual mandate, begins in 2014. The judge also said his ruling only applies to the individual mandate and the provisions of the law that are directly dependent on it.

The Supreme Court is expected ultimately to settle the issue after the Virginia case and similar challenges wind their way through the courts.

Administration officials say the ruling amounts to an attack on one of the law's most popular provisions, the ban on insurers denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions. That piece of the law can't work unless coupled with a requirement that nearly all Americans carry insurance, they say.

"We are disappointed in today's ruling but continue to believe—as other federal courts in Virginia and Michigan have found—that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. "There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail."

The administration has downplayed the outcome of the challenge by Mr. Cuccinelli, a Republican, saying it received outsize attention because of his visibility.

For opponents of the law, Monday's ruling is the first victory in a multifaceted attack designed to help Republicans take back the White House in 2012. Republicans see the court battle as one way to express their opposition to the law.

The Obama administration argues that since all Americans at some point get health-care services, a requirement to carry health insurance is simply a way of regulating how consumers pay for their care. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

In his ruling, Judge Hudson wrote that the Interstate Commerce Clause wasn't sufficient for Congress to establish the individual mandate. He said Congress lacked precedent for "regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme."

Judge Hudson took some jabs at the law. In discussing whether Congress intended the law to stand if the mandate weren't included, he wrote that it was difficult to assess "given the haste with which the final version of the 2,700-page bill was rushed to the floor for a Christmas Eve vote."

He said the court was finding invalid only the part of the law that establishes the individual mandate, and any directly dependent provisions that refer to that part.

Exactly what that applies to is unclear.

The Obama administration says that without the individual mandate, it could no longer require insurers to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions because that would create an unhealthy pool of consumers and drive up insurance prices for everyone.

But the administration argues that, should the mandate ultimately be struck down, courts should uphold most of the rest of the law. That would include the expansion of Medicaid to 16 million Americans, tax subsidies to help lower earners buy insurance and the creation of new exchanges where consumers can comparison shop for policies.

The health overhaul is designed to expand insurance to 32 million Americans. Without the requirement to carry insurance, the Obama administration predicts, the law would leave an additional 16 million Americans uninsured.

States and companies in the health industry say they are forging ahead with responding to the law, and Monday's decision is unlikely to change those plans.

"We don't anticipate an adverse ruling at the district-court level in Virginia or in any other case to materially impede implementation of the act across the full range of its many provisions," an Obama administration official said.

Write to Janet Adamy at [email protected]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...2229615230.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEADNewsCollection
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
Finally, some good news.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,476 Posts
Damn! There still IS common sense in the courts! :laughing:

I was beginning to think the left had installed activist judges in every court room. :nuts:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
Damn! There still IS common sense in the courts! :laughing:

I was beginning to think the left had installed activist judges in every court room. :nuts:
:thumbsup:
This guy was appointed by Bush...

Miss him yet? :laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
I read one analysis of possible Supreme Court leanings. They felt that 4 of the five conservatives would vote that the law was unconstitutional, and the four libs would say it was constitutional. The swing vote was Anthony Kennedy, and that analyst thought he would likely side with the libs. It's going to be interesting and it's going to affect all of us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,607 Posts
This will be interesting. 14 judges have ruled the law constitutional, 1 unconstitutional. I am personally against the mandate for all the reasons you guys are. IMO a public option along with tort reform is the best solution, but the health insurance companies got involved and had those provisions removed because they were bad for business (more competition).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
If it is ultimately ruled constitutional, it will open a massive can of worms, because it would expand the commerce clause to where the gov could mandate you buy anything the oligarchs need to sell.. this is completely against the constitution of the US.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
This will be interesting. 14 judges have ruled the law constitutional, 1 unconstitutional. I am personally against the mandate for all the reasons you guys are. IMO a public option along with tort reform is the best solution, but the health insurance companies got involved and had those provisions removed because they were bad for business (more competition).
Not sure where you get 14 judges. There have been three cases brought before courts. Two have decided in favor of the government and one has decided against. This will definitely get decided by the SC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,607 Posts
Not sure where you get 14 judges. There have been three cases brought before courts. Two have decided in favor of the government and one has decided against. This will definitely get decided by the SC.
11 dismissed:

Sollars v. Reid -dismissed 4/2/10
Taitz v. Obama - dismissed 4/14/10
Archer v. U.S. Senate - dismissed 4/12/10
Heghmann v. Sebelius - dismissed 5/14/10
Mackenzie v. Shaheen - dismissed 5/26/10
Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots v. Sebelius - dismissed 6/2/10
Coalition for Parity Inc. v. Sebelius - dismissed on 6/21/10
U.S. Citizens Association v. OMB - dismissed 8/2/10
Baldwin v. Sebelius – dismissed 8/27/10
Burlsworth v. Holder - dismissed 9/8/10
Schreeve v. Obama - dismissed 11/4/10

2 ruled constitutional, 1 in Virginia, one in Michigan.

And the decision in New Jersey comes after two previous victories for health reform in the Western District of Virginia and Eastern District of Michigan where judges ruled on the merits of the arguments brought by the opponents of reform. In Virginia, the judge wrote:

“I hold that there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals’ decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market…Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care…Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance. As Congress found, the total incidence of these economic decisions has a substantial impact on the national market for health care by collectively shifting billions of dollars on to other market participants and driving up the prices of insurance policies.”

And in Michigan, a federal judge issued a similar ruling and upheld the law.

Not sure what the name of the 14th is, but here is another reference to it:

Federal judges have dismissed 14 of these challenges, and at least two separate judges disagreed with Hudson’s interpretation and questioned the merit of the plaintiffs’ claim that compelling individuals to purchase insurance fell outside the purview of the Commerce Clause.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
I just watched an interview with Cuccinelli. He stated that there have been 4 decisions. All 4 decsions have ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional and 2 have ruled that there should be no injunction issued against implementation or enforcement.

So, it ultimatley will go to the SCOTUS. Cuccinelli himself stated that he envisioned a 5-4 ruling and that which way the final decision leaned was unclear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
11 dismissed:

Sollars v. Reid -dismissed 4/2/10
Taitz v. Obama - dismissed 4/14/10
Archer v. U.S. Senate - dismissed 4/12/10
Heghmann v. Sebelius - dismissed 5/14/10
Mackenzie v. Shaheen - dismissed 5/26/10
Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots v. Sebelius - dismissed 6/2/10
Coalition for Parity Inc. v. Sebelius - dismissed on 6/21/10
U.S. Citizens Association v. OMB - dismissed 8/2/10
Baldwin v. Sebelius – dismissed 8/27/10
Burlsworth v. Holder - dismissed 9/8/10
Schreeve v. Obama - dismissed 11/4/10

2 ruled constitutional, 1 in Virginia, one in Michigan.




Not sure what the name of the 14th is, but here is another reference to it:
I guess most people are looking at actual rulings. According to this quote, after an expected ruling in Florida, the score is likely to be 2-2.

"Jon Cohn notes hopefully that the score is still 2-1 for the pro-reform forces:
Two other federal district judges have already ruled that the Act passes constitutional muster, with a fourth decision, by a judge in Florida, still pending. Hudson refused a motion by the plaintiffs to block implementation of the law. That means it will be left to higher courts to sort out the conflicting rulings. Most legal experts expect that, eventually, the case will come before the U.S. Supreme Court.
As Cohn notes, those two judges who upheld the law were liberals, and the Florida judge whom we await is a conservative, so it'll likely wash out 2-2. Then on to the high court."

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/dec/13/healthcare-virginia
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top