Skip to comments.Health-Care Law Ruled Constitutional by U.S. Judge
Posted on 10/07/2010 2:56:29 PM PDT by speciallybland
A U.S. judge upheld the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul President Barack Obama signed in March, rejecting an argument brought by a self- described Christian law center in the first legal victory for the new law.
U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit today denied the Thomas More Law Centers request for an injunction against the law and said the group failed to prove the statute is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
The minimum coverage provision, which addresses economic decisions regarding health-care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need, is a reasonable means of effectuating Congresss goal, Steeh wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
DETROIT..............PAHLEEEEEEZE. Everyone knows this is going to the Supremes.
The Honorable George C. Steeh was appointed United States District Judge in 1998 by President Clinton.....
Take it to SCOTUS they’ll overturn the Detroit Dweeb.
figures...was going to ask the question...i now understand why the ruling...by a socialist or commie
“Reasonable,” says the judge? There is nothing reasonable about ObamaCare.
Yet, he said "....... lawmakers intended to lower the overall cost of health insurance by requiring participation."
The puke hasn't got beyond the edge of the Democrat party talking points when he says that.
Time for the new Congress to fund a new office for the judge in the Upper Peninsula in an unheated log cabin.
is a reasonable means of effectuating Congresss goal, Steeh wrote.
But it’s not constitutional.
I hope Obamacare is overturned by the courts, but realistically, do you think it will be? Will Anthony Kennedy really rule against it?
How’d it end up in Detroit?
Don’t believe the judge was asked to rule on the cost/benefit ratio of the legislation but on the constitutionality of it. It doesn’t matter if the law would make everyone in the nation millionaires and good looking, nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of the law. The question was, can the federal government force anyone to purchase a product endorsed by the government? Think his ruling will be tossed at the first chance.
It depends on how much he values his reputation as being for good, sound law versus bad, unconstitutional law.
How many people screamed, if for no other reason, zero would appoint up to three supers ?
But no ... like answering the card swipe question, "Is $132.55 OK?" ... too many voters punched "Yes"
1,000,000 more people just decided to crawl over broken glass to vote Democrats out.
Should have let the Canadians keep the damn place in 1812.
It doesn't matter how the courts rule. The system is unsustainable. It will collapse on its own. How are people going to pay the fines, much less buy health insurance, if they have no jobs.
Didn't the government recently change its stance on this and argue that Congress does have the power to enact this law because it is a tax?
On the unanimous recommendation of Senators Carl Levin and William Riegle, Jr., Steeh was nominated by President Bill Clinton on September 24, 1997
I still belive that the best chance is the case that was brought by the group of States. This was a small case brought up by a Christian Group.
” .. reasonable ... “
???? I thought the question to be answered was: “Is it legal and Constitutional?”
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.