Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge in Va. strikes down federal health care law
Ap/YahooNews ^ | 12/13/10 | Larry O'Dell

Posted on 12/13/2010 9:51:11 AM PST by Kartographer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 next last
To: Kartographer
As Solicitor General under Obama, will Kagan have to recuse herself... ensuring this ruling is upheld?!
51 posted on 12/13/2010 10:44:49 AM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: katieanna

I concur


52 posted on 12/13/2010 10:47:19 AM PST by davidosborne (I am SpartanSixDelta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Kagan didn’t recuse herself last time a case came up in which she had been Sol General... so why should she now? She is there, like Sotomayor, to overturn the Constitution, plain and simple.


53 posted on 12/13/2010 10:47:19 AM PST by backwoods-engineer (Onward to the battle royal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: pghoilman
>
>And don’t forget the Dummies forgot to put a severability clause in the bill.
>

I thought there was a severability clause in the bill, but if not this ruling is VERY good news.

I have been worried about what would happen if only the individual mandate was struck down, and the remainder of the bill left intact.
IMHO, this would be a worse case scenario that would accelerate the demise of private insurers, specifically due to the pre-existing prohibition of the bill.

54 posted on 12/13/2010 10:48:40 AM PST by SecondAmendment (Restoring our Republic one Post at a Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NRG1973

No, they didn’t forget — they knew that things like the individual mandate are necessary or the whole structure falls like a house of cards.


55 posted on 12/13/2010 10:56:18 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

Honestly, even many liberals oppose the individual mandate.

The DU and DailyKos folks were furious about the individual mandate.

I can see a much better victory than 5-4 on this one.


56 posted on 12/13/2010 10:59:44 AM PST by Persevero (5 days until the lame duck Congress goes home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer; Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!; GQuagmire; wintertime; Fred Nerks; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

. . . . # 53

"Kagan didn’t recuse herself last time a case came up in which she had been Sol General... so why should she now? She is there, like Sotomayor, to overturn the Constitution, plain and simple."

.

57 posted on 12/13/2010 11:00:50 AM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

“Obama may live to regret castigating the SC Justices in the SOTU this past January. Kennedy was among those he dissed.”

That had to be the politically most stupid move I have ever witnessed. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it. Unbelievable.


58 posted on 12/13/2010 11:01:07 AM PST by Persevero (5 days until the lame duck Congress goes home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
Ain't you the frikin patriot.

After we clean house here, guess where we are coming.

It is one thing to twaddle on about how dangerous you are because you can polish your guns watching teevee.

I can run away any time too, just do not have that in me.

And I never go back to where I ran from.

Are you my uncle Richard...?

Outside Huston...?

59 posted on 12/13/2010 11:04:43 AM PST by mmercier (One day you shall live in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

It’s the kind of thing a small child would do, with no thought for the consequences. By the time a person reaches adulthood, they’re supposed to have learned that payback is a witch...or something like that. ;)


60 posted on 12/13/2010 11:11:08 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

Via Twitter whpresscorps - WH Press Briefing

Gibbs won’t use the term “individual mandate” - instead refers to the “individual responsibility” provisions

3 minutes ago via web


61 posted on 12/13/2010 11:16:52 AM PST by VRWCTexan (Those who forget history, are doomed to repeat it !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

G-d Bless Judge Henry E. Hudson.


62 posted on 12/13/2010 11:17:47 AM PST by Uncle Miltie (0bama thought he'd find "common ground" on 0bamaCare because of ROMNEYCARE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gadsden1st

Yes Virginia.

There is a Santa Claus.

(I haven’t checked all the threads yet, but someone needed to get it out there)


63 posted on 12/13/2010 11:18:15 AM PST by bluescape (The American media, The guard dog that holds you down while the attacker has his way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
As Solicitor General under Obama, will Kagan have to recuse herself... ensuring this ruling is upheld?!

If its true that Kagan must recuse herself (and I doubt that because she never got involved with this case/issue as Solicitor General) Then a 4-4 decision would uphold the allelate court ruling. Thus, I hope that the appelate court does uphold Hudson's ruling.

64 posted on 12/13/2010 11:18:32 AM PST by NRG1973
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

Can anyone tell me if this means the bill is stopped; that it can’t be implemented?


65 posted on 12/13/2010 11:19:52 AM PST by Steve1789 (Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. -A.L.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

BreakingNews ‘We are confident that the affordable care act will be upheld,’ WH spokesman Robert Gibbs says about Va. court ruling on health care law

2 minutes ago via breakingnews.com


66 posted on 12/13/2010 11:20:23 AM PST by VRWCTexan (Those who forget history, are doomed to repeat it !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

YEEEEEE HAWWW!


67 posted on 12/13/2010 11:20:30 AM PST by angelcindy (impeach him now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

OK.....so this is good......right? ;*)


68 posted on 12/13/2010 11:20:50 AM PST by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve0113
Can anyone tell me if this means the bill is stopped; that it can’t be implemented?

I'm sure this ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court...we aren't done with 0bamacare yet.

69 posted on 12/13/2010 11:22:29 AM PST by NRG1973
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer
Can't help looking at this like a lawyer, so here goes....

If the individual mandate is the problem, wouldn't that argument also ban any plan to privatize Social Security to the extent such a plan required people to make retirement contribution into certain classes of privately-owned investments?

Just thought of that because frankly, I think the battle on this kind of stuff was fought and lost with government-provided social benefits at the outset. If the government can do Medicare, then it also could do a full national health insurance program for all citizens. And if it could do that, why not the lesser action of reqiuring private insurance? At the least, that permits more individual choice/discretion than a Kennedy/Hillary-esque NHI system that likely woudl pass constitutional muster.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating that. I'm just worried that is the reasoning appellate courts may follow.

70 posted on 12/13/2010 11:23:06 AM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Finally, an honest judge. I guess there still are some left, but somehow they never seem to get the important cases.


71 posted on 12/13/2010 11:23:36 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Steve0113

The judge specifically decided NOT to impose any court restrictions on implemention - stating that the provisions he had ruled against did not take effect until 2013


72 posted on 12/13/2010 11:24:07 AM PST by VRWCTexan (Those who forget history, are doomed to repeat it !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: NRG1973

Right, but is it stopped for the moment, or will implementation continue unabated?


73 posted on 12/13/2010 11:25:30 AM PST by Steve1789 (Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. -A.L.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

There was no internet when they passed SS. It was promoted on lies and there was no communication channels for the people to dispell those lies.


74 posted on 12/13/2010 11:25:48 AM PST by del4hope (Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus....for now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: VRWCTexan

Okay, thanks.


75 posted on 12/13/2010 11:27:12 AM PST by Steve1789 (Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. -A.L.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

“No, they didn’t forget — they knew that things like the individual mandate are necessary or the whole structure falls like a house of cards.”

No, I think they just blew it. Of course we all know the bill doesn’t work without the IM, but they could have easily included severability to protect the rest of the monstrosity.


76 posted on 12/13/2010 11:28:10 AM PST by pghoilman (Earth First. We'll drill the rest of the galaxy later.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: mmercier

“Are you my uncle Richard...?”

No mental illness in the family I know of ... so no, I guess I’m not. Aren’t you the barrel of laughs. Do you need a /sarc tag after everything these days? Relax, tough guy, I was joking around.


77 posted on 12/13/2010 11:28:25 AM PST by jessduntno (TSA: "Because screwing you with your pants ON just wasn't enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: mmercier

Reality check ... nothing like that is going to happen.

2010 America (Post-American-Welfare-Police-State-Zone) consists of “loser” 2010 people. It is no longer inhabited by tough take no sh#t hombres from 1863.


78 posted on 12/13/2010 11:33:31 AM PST by MrInvisible
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

Here’s the problem.

I’ll never comply. EVER.


79 posted on 12/13/2010 11:37:02 AM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pghoilman

You must realize that the rest of the monstrosity can’t work without the individual mandate, and the extra money coming in from the young and the illegals by coercion. That’s why they didn’t put it in.


80 posted on 12/13/2010 11:37:34 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin
If the individual mandate is the problem, wouldn't that argument also ban any plan to privatize Social Security to the extent such a plan required people to make retirement contribution into certain classes of privately-owned investments?

No. Because none of the laws considered in privitizing Social Security REQUIRED anything. They simply ALLOWED those wanting to privately invest to be able to do so.

81 posted on 12/13/2010 11:37:49 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: goldi

So, are you going to give in because 5 people told you to do so? I’ll never submit to control. Put me in prison. We’ll overwhelm the system. They can not control us. They can try. We will resist.


82 posted on 12/13/2010 11:40:15 AM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pghoilman

I’m scratching my head over that one. WTF? were they thinking?


83 posted on 12/13/2010 11:41:50 AM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Steve0113

That particular part of the Act, Sec 1501 is rules unconstitutional. As such, it is unenforceable.

Now the US has two options: To appeal the decision (which is likely) and/or to try to get Congress to re-draft it.

The second option is the cats meow because if it goes back to Congress, Congress will probably repeal the whole damn mess!


84 posted on 12/13/2010 11:41:50 AM PST by djf (Touch my junk and I'll break yur mug!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Trajan88

I can hardly wait! I usually podcast him, today, I’ll plug into the internet for his live show.


85 posted on 12/13/2010 11:43:37 AM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

Score for the good guys....vs. everything else Nation D.C. is trying to create satellite States with.


86 posted on 12/13/2010 11:44:14 AM PST by Varsity Flight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
My understanding of some of the privatization proposals is that you would have the option of keeping your money with the feds, or investing it in private securities. In general, I don't think most such proposals contain an "opt-out" provision where you can just keep all the money that would have gone to SS and not invest any of it. If I'm wrong, fine. Then my question would only pertain to plans that fit those criteria.
87 posted on 12/13/2010 11:45:10 AM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: del4hope

Hey, I agree with you. I don’t think SS is constitutional, and the same applies to Medicare, etc. Unfortunately, we lost that argument, so the Constitutional slate on which the Court will be writing includes those two programs.


88 posted on 12/13/2010 11:47:10 AM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Kagen wiil have to recuse herself. EGO 4,4.


89 posted on 12/13/2010 11:47:18 AM PST by golfisnr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

That’s why it is not the same scenario. You have to have SS payroll deductions by law and that is not the question. The Obamacare individual mandate requires that you purchase something from a particular vendor. The SS analogy does not work because you have an option of how those taxes are invested. You are not forced to purchase anything from a specific vendor even though you are required to pay the tax.


90 posted on 12/13/2010 11:57:50 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

Many conspiracy theories on why severability clause was omitted. Below is a good summary:

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/07/of-severability-and-sins-of-om


91 posted on 12/13/2010 12:05:12 PM PST by pghoilman (Earth First. We'll drill the rest of the galaxy later.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: cycle of discernment

Yes. I believe this will be the outcome.


92 posted on 12/13/2010 12:05:17 PM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

Does anyone know this judge’s record with the Supreme Court or the other 2 judges?


93 posted on 12/13/2010 12:06:18 PM PST by republicangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: golfisnr1

Scalia
Roberts
Alito
Thomas

Kennedy

Breyer
Ginsberg
Sotomayor
Kagan


Kennedy will likely go our way :)


94 posted on 12/13/2010 12:06:27 PM PST by Principled (Get the capital back! NRST!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
The SS analogy does not work because you have an option of how those taxes are invested.

Huh?????

95 posted on 12/13/2010 12:06:45 PM PST by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Principled

5-4 It is the most egregious act ever by a dictating socialist. If someone lives in their house and never comes out, how the hell do you justify taxing them.


96 posted on 12/13/2010 12:10:13 PM PST by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

FINALLY!

Unbelievable. A federal judge FINALLY strikes down something that SHOULD be struck down.

Wow.


97 posted on 12/13/2010 12:14:51 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
After this ruling, I don't see why I have to be forced to invest in the Federal government's giant Ponzi scheme called Social Security.... I should have the choice of finding a PRIVATE SECTOR alternative to the government scam...
98 posted on 12/13/2010 12:15:22 PM PST by April Lexington (Study the Constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: katieanna

ok, excuse my ignorance. The other judges were they state judges, is this an appeal? What is the flow chart? if anyone can make this clearer for me I would appreciate it and I hate to reveal my stupidity


99 posted on 12/13/2010 12:45:24 PM PST by mel (since progressive is code word for anti- i am a progressive progressive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

The federal government can’t require you to buy a product (health insurance) from a private corporation (HMO)


100 posted on 12/13/2010 1:16:13 PM PST by jd777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson