Posted on 02/23/2011 6:23:28 AM PST by FredJake
On Tuesday a federal judge handed the Obama administration another victory in the ongoing battle over Obamacare.
Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler tossed out a lawsuit brought by the American Center for Law and Justice, a Christian-based legal organization.
The suit was filed on behalf of five Americans who have chosen not to purchase health insurance even though they can afford it.
Three of the five felt the law violates the religious freedom of those who believe God will heal them of any disease they might get.
Fox News reports:
They say being forced to buy insurance would conflict with their faith because they believe doing so would indicate they need "a backup plan and (are) not really sure whether God will, in fact, provide," the lawsuit said.
The two other plaintiffs have a holistic approach to medical care and prefer to pay for their health services out of pocket, in part because insurance often doesn't cover their chosen methods of healing.
Kessler, a Clinton appointee, dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Congress has the authority to regulate health care spending under the Commerce Clause.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
I'll skip the pop-ups and trackers, thanks.
The objective is to overwhelm the system with so many lawsuits that the entire thing grinds to a halt.
The Left hates it when we use their own tactics against them.
Joe Newby, this is a dumb analysis. This ruling was not a “victory” for Obama, nor did it say Obamacare is constitutional.
The ruling simply stands for the proposition that these particular petitioners did not show that their constitutional rights to exercise their religion freely were impinged by Obamacare.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
‘Rats can do to The People whatever they want under the “Commie Clause”.
Either that or make it apparent to the Supreme Court just how imperative it is for them to put a high priority on hearing this case. Could this incentivize them to reach down through the appeals process and elevate it? Hope so!
It is apparent that we really ARE headed for civil war. These kinds of decisions are madness, yet a judge gets away with it.
Doesn’t Obamacare already exempt the Amish or will they under this ruling be now forced to buy insurance? Obamacare has become a patchwork of who will or will not be subject to its provisions and exemptions are passed out to large groups like unions as political favors. How can you have a law of the land that affects some people but not others?
It’s like this.
If I file suit claiming that Obamacare is unconstitutional because it violates my right to attend Tea Party rallies, and the judge says “No, it doesn’t; it doesn’t affect your right to attend Tea Party rallies at all,” that ruling in no way is a “victory” for Obamacare, nor does it say that Obamacare is constitutional.
It just says that the theory upon which I based the claim that Obamacare was unconstitutional didn’t fly.
Doesn’t matter . It was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a Florida judge . I’m waiting for an Egypt moment on this Obozo.
Actually, if the end of this line is true. “Kessler, a Clinton appointee, dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Congress has the authority to regulate health care spending under the Commerce Clause.”, it does show the exact opposite of the opinion in Florida. He basically said that “non-commerce” is commerce once the government forces you to buy something.
Just goes to show that there are those that think the FedGov can do anything, once they find a way to word what they are doing differently. It reminds me of the Seattle official that praised Seattles “voluntary mandatory bussing system.”
Its simply shoot a judge or politician and you get free health care for life.
Once your a prisoner your stature rises!
And soon being a prisoner won’t affect your right to vote.
Aren’t muslims given a free pass on buying health insurance for religious reasons?
Aren’t illegals given a free pass on buying health insurance because of...
It is beginning to appear you have to be a Parasite or Illegal to qualify for the American Dream!
Read the decision below carefully. The Judge erases the distinction between commercial activity and inactivity, between mental and physical action, opening the door to the regulation of, for example, a failure to think adoring thoughts of Big Brother, should such adoration be deemed necessary to “commerce.” What unholy crap:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM152_110222_mead_memo.html
In particular, see page 45 for the inartful erasure of the aforementioned distinctions that have heretofore protected us from the “thought police.”
Obamacare has become a patchwork of who will or will not be subject to its provisions and exemptions are passed out to large groups like unions as political favors
This was always always always to be the inevitable outcome of ObamaCare. Once government intervenes (in any process) the process becomes one of arbitrary political enforcement. This is absolutely contrary to the concept of freedom, of the individual deciding for himself his own path.
The leftist counter argument is that the government intervention was decided "democratically," which of course is true (notwithstanding electoral corruption). That is why "conservatism" is a matter of declaring personal responsibility for one's own decisions, and why the politicians, now only Repub or Demo Parties, are corrupt - they ALL want the power over others, that is why they are politicians, and why the only solutions are the most fundamental public clarifications of the ideology of "conservatism" (thus countering media spin), and why the centralized federal government must be dismantled.
Johnny Suntrade
rules for radical conservatives-
David Kahane
It's been some time since I read it but I'm pretty certain a religious exemption was written into the law.
I thought Barry had already given exemptions to the Amish - ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.