Posted on 10/14/2010 2:39:40 PM PDT by FromLori
(Reuters) - U.S. states can proceed with a lawsuit seeking to overturn President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare reform law, a Florida judge ruled on Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson had already indicated at a hearing last month that he could not uphold parts of a motion by the Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuit, led by Florida and 19 other states.
"In this order, I have not attempted to determine whether the line between constitutional and extraconstitutional government has been crossed," Vinson, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, wrote in his ruling.
"I am only saying that ... the plaintiffs have at least stated a plausible claim that the line has been crossed," Vinson said.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Screw Omoslem, and the camel he rode in on.
Awwwwww. I was kinda thinkin of retiring early and sticking all youse guys with my health care bills....
Sounds like grounds for the Supreme Court to get involved.
And we know what they think of obama.
Roger Vinson was nominated to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan on September 9, 1983 to a seat vacated by Lynn C. Higby, was confirmed by the Senate on October 4, and received his commission a day later.
Today is starting to look up.
If memory serves, this was to be issued 2 days before the summary judgment hearing on the VA AG case vs. Obamacare.
Three months is not enough to reverse what's all about to happen to everybody on Jan 1.
I hope it is...but not holding my breath.
ouch! I don’t know how the damage can be undone, but it’s important that this be stopped from further, truly long-term/permanent damage.
Personally, I doubt I’ll live long enough to see the worst of it, which I think will be to deter the “best and brightest” from pursuing medical careers. But it sure frightens me for my kids and their kids.
When was the last time outside of the Civil War that so many states stood athwart the federal government?
I suppose I shouldn't worry. The Wise Latina and Bull Dyke will certainly consider all state arguments, flick them away like so many boogers, consult Kenyan law or maybe the protocols of the tribes of Zimbabwe to arrive at a "Constitutional" decision.
Tyrants should fear for their personal safety.
I’ve been thinking about this report on the Judge’s decision regarding the Health Care Lawsuit brought by various Attorneys General throughout the US.
Something that folks are not considering is the importance of this Election cycle and the Heath Care Lawsuit.
If people in a State vote for the Democrat candidate for Governor this year, will that candidate direct his or her Attorney General to drop their support for the lawsuit?
Will a Democrat winner of an election for Attorney General support the lawsuit, or will they drop any support their predecessor has had for it?
If a Democrat wins the race in your district for the State Legislature, will he or she vote to de-fund the AG’s Lawsuit?
Thinking of Florida, where this ruling was made, what will Alex Sink do regarding the Health Care lawsuit, should she win her race for Governor?
Are you considering not voting because your candidate lost in the primary?
Elections have consequences.
Vote, people!
But certainly, statewide elections are important to what remains of our federal system.
What if Dems raised taxes $500 on everyone, but they gave a $500 tax credit for only those that buy the insurance policies they want you to? Another tax credit just like for that green car. And they could have done this by extending the tax cuts, but $500 short plus that HI credit that makes it up for the ones that comply (I know I think this stuff out too much).
This is not politically clean but has the same effect as the current mandate/fine/tax/whatever. You only pay more if you don't buy it.
In summary, decades of precedents allow them to manage our lives with our money. I definitely don't like it. I don't like tax credits(except when I get them OOOPPPPS).
On the other hand if a judge was evil (like me), he would throw out the personal mandate but tell the congress they need to repass it with a superfical change in wording, like word ‘fee’ changed to ‘tax’, but no real changes to the bill needed. But now democrats cant repass anything related to Obama-care for too many obvious reasons, They cant change that one word and re-pass the same bill or anything like it.
This is like chaining a thirsty dog, (er a rat), within inches of water.
I am afraid you will be proved correct. If they throw out Obamacare, how can they collect social security/medicare taxes?
So ultimately these lawsuits may do nothing more than give conservatives a way to protest the march of socialism. That might be a political morale booster, but it might also lower morale if the SCOTUS rules against these lawsuits or refuses to accept the cases in the end.
This isn’t a full victory. The judge blocked parts of the suit including complaints that the law interferes with state sovereignty as to whether employers must offer insurance; that the law coerces states into setting up insurance exchanges; that the individual mandate violates the states’ due process rights.
This is a victory for big government that even a Reagan appointee can’t turn away. The Feds are free to interfere in our lives, they just have to be more careful about how they manipulate us.
We can’t stop winning elections with this cycle. We need a never ending barrage demanding a return to Constitutional limits.
We need to keep in mind that Obama won with a plurality.
The electorate is getting dumber.
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.