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

Skip to comments.

The Nuts and Bolts of the ObamaCare Ruling
Wall Street Journal Online ^ | 2/2/2011 | WSJ online

Posted on 02/02/2011 6:24:55 AM PST by Blueflag

Nice review of how Judge Vinson struck "down the entire health-reform law on the grounds that the individual mandate was not severable from the rest of the statute."

And yes I performed a search on the title words "nuts and bolts"

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; healthcare; individualmandate; judgevinson; obamacare; ruling; wsj
For months, progressives smugly labeled the legal challenges to ObamaCare as "silly" or even "frivolous." Today their confidence must be severely shaken.

Late Monday afternoon in Pensacola, Fla., U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson delivered the second major judgment that the centerpiece of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—the "individual mandate" that forces Americans to buy health insurance whether or not they want it—is unconstitutional.

In December, District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled against the mandate in a separate lawsuit brought by the state of Virginia. But Judge Vinson's sweeping and powerfully reasoned decision this week went much further, striking down the entire health-reform law on the grounds that the individual mandate was not severable from the rest of the statute. And the plaintiffs in Judge Vinson's courtroom included the attorneys general of 26 states, not just one. His opinion thus casts a dark shadow over ObamaCare until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling on the matter.

1 posted on 02/02/2011 6:24:58 AM PST by Blueflag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad; justlurking; Personal Responsibility; DrC; Libloather; Mr. K; Gator113; ...

Thought you folks might want to read this.

Enjoy.

Per THIS source, the judge “... [struck] down the entire health-reform law.”


2 posted on 02/02/2011 6:28:11 AM PST by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag

Good article. Thanks!


3 posted on 02/02/2011 6:29:21 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag

I guess they didn’t read the bill before they passed it. All those lawyers that passed it, and the staff lawyers that crafted it... Good thing.


4 posted on 02/02/2011 6:36:29 AM PST by b4its2late (Ignorance allows liberalism to prosper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag
I doubt you could do a better job than mark livin has already broadcast.
5 posted on 02/02/2011 6:37:49 AM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

One of the authors of this article, Randy Barnett, had his scholarly worked cited in Judge Vinson’s opinion. Perhaps more than any other single legal scholar, he’s been the intellectual force behind the view that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Many other conservative legal scholars had concluded (reluctantly) that based on past SCOTUS decisions, the individual mandate probably was constitutional even if the Founders would have viewed the idea with great alarm.


6 posted on 02/02/2011 6:39:29 AM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DrC

I did not know that. Thanks!


7 posted on 02/02/2011 6:42:10 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

I missed it!

I presume he did a great job.

Does he have a website with relevant excerpts? I’d love to read his insights. ... And his acerbic wit ;-)


8 posted on 02/02/2011 6:47:48 AM PST by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag

>> Per THIS source, the judge “... [struck] down the entire health-reform law.”

I don’t disagree with that.

Nor do I trust it as a final solution. The appellate courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, are simply too capricious and arbitrary in their actions to have rock solid faith that they will let this stand.

I surely hope they do, however. This is just one more time in life that I hope I’m wrong in being skeptical.


9 posted on 02/02/2011 6:52:27 AM PST by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag

Yes just put his name in a search, he has streaming of all prior shows for several days listed. He was the first one that pointed out that the media was lying and the whole thing was made null and void by the judge, page 73 and 75:


10 posted on 02/02/2011 6:54:40 AM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AngieGal

ping to article


11 posted on 02/02/2011 7:31:28 AM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat; Blueflag; DrC
Levin dissected and shredded the government in the Obamacare suit.

I would only add to DrC's post and recommend every Freeper take the time to read Randy Barnett's most recent book, "Restoring the Lost Constitution."


12 posted on 02/02/2011 7:40:51 AM PST by Jacquerie (We are not subjects, we are citizens. Congressman Mike Pence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag

There are some great comments at the linked article.
It is very encouraging to see intelligence outside of FreeRepublic.


13 posted on 02/02/2011 7:43:31 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag
I didn't see anywhere that the ruling applied to all of the states that joined the suit.

It said:

And the plaintiffs in Judge Vinson's courtroom included the attorneys general of 26 states, not just one. His opinion thus casts a dark shadow over ObamaCare until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling on the matter.

That's all it said. There's nothing about the scope of the ruling, other than there's a "dark shadow" until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling.

If and when the Supreme Court rules on the issue, it will apply to all of the states. Until then, not much has changed except among the pundits arguing about it.

14 posted on 02/02/2011 8:29:33 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

OK, remembering I am not a lawyer, but I have had to deal with a lot of contracts ...

Let’s say company A in Florida has a contract with National Supplier X.

Company A sues National Supplier X to break a contract for “good reason”.

25 other companies HQ’d in other states join the suit in Federal court in FL.

After the trial, the judge in FL rules the contract is fundamentally flawed in its entirety and orders it null and void. ALL 26 companies now have relief from that contract, regardless of the jurisdiction of that judge.

I recognize that contract law is not the same as constitutional law, and the law is not ‘logical’. I just “believe” based on prior experience (not as a lawyer) that every party in the suit gets relief.

AND I agree that until the USSC says it’s unconstitutional, this regime will continue to say it’s good law.


15 posted on 02/03/2011 5:05:26 PM PST by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

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