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

Skip to comments.

Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law
Reuters ^ | Jeremy Pelofsky and James Vicini

Posted on 08/12/2011 10:43:48 AM PDT by americanophile

(Reuters) - An appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 11thcircuit; courtonobamacare; dubina; frankhull; healthcare; hull; individualmandate; joeldubina; marcus; obamacare; romneycare; ruling; stanleymarcus; statesrights; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-185 next last
Ha!
1 posted on 08/12/2011 10:43:53 AM PDT by americanophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: americanophile

Just mentioned on Rush — great news!


2 posted on 08/12/2011 10:46:30 AM PDT by Rocko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

Regardless of what happens, it will end up at the SCOTUS and it will all eventually depend on ONE MAN and which side of the bed he wakes up in (Justice Kennedy).


3 posted on 08/12/2011 10:48:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rocko

Obama really has had a terrible few weeks.


4 posted on 08/12/2011 10:48:30 AM PDT by americanophile ("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

True. It’s an amazing reality. Unless, God forbid, he should drop dead between now and then, leaving Obama with a key appointment.


5 posted on 08/12/2011 10:49:55 AM PDT by americanophile ("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

Duplicate
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2762794/posts


6 posted on 08/12/2011 10:50:35 AM PDT by null and void (Day 932. The mob is decisive when the law is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
Sweet! The court read the law and found out what is really in it.

The best medical system the globe has to offer may yet be saved.

7 posted on 08/12/2011 10:50:42 AM PDT by oyez ( America is being pimped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

This needs to be heard in October and ruled on in November — so that doesn’t happen!


8 posted on 08/12/2011 10:51:23 AM PDT by KT22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

This needs to be heard in October and ruled on in November — so that doesn’t happen!


9 posted on 08/12/2011 10:51:26 AM PDT by KT22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
“The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that (Democrats in) Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage”
10 posted on 08/12/2011 10:52:25 AM PDT by tobyhill (Real Spending Cuts Don't Require Increasing The Debt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Well, it’s not a duplicate, but it’s the same issue.


11 posted on 08/12/2011 10:52:33 AM PDT by americanophile ("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I agree. Swing vote Kennedy is the final arbiter on all legislative policy issues that come up for review in the Supreme Court. As such he may be the single most important legislator, I mean, judge in the US.


12 posted on 08/12/2011 10:54:08 AM PDT by chuckee (mouthing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

Point conceded, but still best to have a single thread to aggregate comments, IMHO.


13 posted on 08/12/2011 10:54:25 AM PDT by null and void (Day 932. The mob is decisive when the law is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The concept of the individual federal mandate is perhaps the most dangerous in our lifetimes. It would completely eviscerate the Constitution.


14 posted on 08/12/2011 10:55:12 AM PDT by americanophile ("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Ya, okay...I generally agree.


15 posted on 08/12/2011 10:56:31 AM PDT by americanophile ("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
How could they uphold the rest of the law when it does not severability?
16 posted on 08/12/2011 10:57:58 AM PDT by Mikey_1962 (Obama: The Affirmative Action President. Alea iacta est!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

Still, frustrating to not be first, I’ve been minutes or seconds late to the party dozens of times...


17 posted on 08/12/2011 10:58:32 AM PDT by null and void (Day 932. The mob is decisive when the law is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

Striking down the individual mandate still leaves a terrible, tyrannical law.

Because Obamacare authorizes the bureaucrats to dictate the terms and benefits of all health insurance policies that may be offered to the public, your choice is essentially to go without health insurance entirely (which the 11th Circuit now says you can do) or buy a policy that is a government-designed policy.

The government-designed policy allows the government to decide which treatments may be paid for and which may not. Old white person who lived your life responsibly and conservatively? No treatments for you, too expensive. Young homosexual who needs expensive AIDS drugs because they had thousands of anonymous sexual encounters in bathhouses? Yes, this gets paid because that is a government-approved victim group with higher status.

Since Congress did not include a severability clause and it is impossible to say how Congress would have structured the law if it could not include the individual mandate, the entire law should have been struck down.


18 posted on 08/12/2011 10:58:44 AM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

We first conclude that the Act’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional.
Existing Supreme Court precedent does not establish that Congress’s inducements
are unconstitutionally coercive, especially when the federal government will bear
nearly all the costs of the program’s amplified enrollments.
Next, the individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a
revenue-raising tax, and cannot be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s power
under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The mandate is denominated as a penalty in
the Act itself, and the legislative history and relevant case law confirm this reading
of its function.
Further, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce
power and is unconstitutional. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel
and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to
compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have
elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every
month for their entire lives. We have not found any generally applicable, judicially
enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without
obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional
powers. “Uniqueness” is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme
Court decision. The individual mandate also finds no refuge in the aggregation doctrine, for decisions to abstain from the purchase of a product or service,
whatever their cumulative effect, lack a sufficient nexus to commerce.145
The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the
Act’s myriad reforms. The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of
judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional
system. The Act’s other provisions remain legally operative after the mandate’s
excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the
presumption of severability has not been met.
Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the district
court.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
145Our respected dissenting colleague says that the majority: (1) “has ignored the broad
power of Congress”; (2) “has ignored the Supreme Court’s expansive reading of the Commerce
Clause”; (3) “presume[s] to sit as a superlegislature”; (4) “misapprehends the role of a reviewing
court”; and (5) ignores that “as nonelected judicial officers, we are not afforded the opportunity
to rewrite statutes we don’t like.” See Dissenting Op. at 208–209, 243. We do not respond to
these contentions, especially given (1) our extensive and exceedingly careful review of the Act,
Supreme Court precedent, and the parties’ arguments, and (2) our holding that the Act, despite
significant challenges to this massive and sweeping federal regulation and spending, falls within
the ambit and prerogative of Congress’s broad commerce power, except for one section, §
5000A. We do, however, refuse to abdicate our constitutional duty when Congress has acted
beyond its enumerated Commerce Clause power in mandating that Americans, from cradle to
grave, purchase an insurance product from a private company.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.


19 posted on 08/12/2011 10:59:57 AM PDT by Crawdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

Repeal ObamaCommieCare!!


20 posted on 08/12/2011 11:03:17 AM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Exactly! Well articulated!


21 posted on 08/12/2011 11:04:02 AM PDT by awin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Exactly! Well articulated!


22 posted on 08/12/2011 11:04:02 AM PDT by awin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962
How could they uphold the rest of the law when it does not severability?

Waiting for an answer...

23 posted on 08/12/2011 11:04:27 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
Of course it would.

My guess is that Obama will now try to dump the individual mandate.

He can't go into the next election with the USSC ruling against him and that would be the case if he doesn't drop the IM.

24 posted on 08/12/2011 11:05:22 AM PDT by tobyhill (Real Spending Cuts Don't Require Increasing The Debt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Crawdad
"Further, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives. We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers."

This is the heart of it. Were this allowed to stand, there would be no hope of curtailing federal power. The rest of the act can be dealth with by legislative repeal, but the as long as SCOTUS agrees with this line of thinking (and it's clearly unconstitional), we'll be fine.

25 posted on 08/12/2011 11:07:03 AM PDT by americanophile ("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

Most people don't realize that beginning in 2012, next year, the premiums we pay for health insurance will no longer be considered pre-tax income. It is a tax hike on everyone.

If I am wrong about this, please prove me wrong. (Please!)

26 posted on 08/12/2011 11:08:22 AM PDT by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oyez
The court read the law and found out what is really in it.

Apparently not. Seems they didn't get beyond the individual mandate:

but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

Although I'm quite happy about them ruling the individual mandate unconstitutional, the rest of the law will utterly destroy our first-world health-care system. But perhaps the court was asked to rule only on the individual mandate itself.

27 posted on 08/12/2011 11:09:28 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Semper911

Oh, and I think we will be taxed on our employer’s contribution too!

Please tell me I’m wrong!


28 posted on 08/12/2011 11:09:55 AM PDT by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

I wondered that myself? If part is unconstitutional without the severability clause it all has to go?The only thing I can figure is they know they are not the last word on it?


29 posted on 08/12/2011 11:09:55 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962

This is their reasoning from the opinion.

“The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the
Act’s myriad reforms. The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of
judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional
system. The Act’s other provisions remain legally operative after the mandate’s
excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the
presumption of severability has not been met.”

Losing the individual mandate eliminates the bill’s main source of funding for subsidizing 17 million new entrants to the health care insurance system. How will they pay for them now. No problem for deficit loving Congressional Democrats.


30 posted on 08/12/2011 11:10:21 AM PDT by chuckee (mouthing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: All
They
Taki's Magazine ^ | August 11 2011 | Takuyan Seiyo
Posted on Friday, August 12, 2011 1:34:54 AM by Shalmaneser
 
 
 
Posted in the middle of the night last night. Deserves a look.


31 posted on 08/12/2011 11:11:00 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (The views and opinions expressed in this post are true and correct. Deal with it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962

I think the rest of the law will prove to be unworkable without the draconian mandate.


32 posted on 08/12/2011 11:11:00 AM PDT by americanophile ("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

This made my day! While it doesn’t kill it entirely it chops off the head. Without funding the rest will fall...


33 posted on 08/12/2011 11:12:23 AM PDT by xenob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

;) Sometimes it does feel like a race, no?


34 posted on 08/12/2011 11:12:49 AM PDT by americanophile ("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Crawdad
While I understand that the court is ok with the rest of the law, the Individual Mandate will not be able to be separated from the rest of the law.

This is the death nail in Obamacare because now the USSC doesn't even have to rule on the case, all they have to do is affirm this courts decision base strictly on the Individual Mandate.

35 posted on 08/12/2011 11:13:33 AM PDT by tobyhill (Real Spending Cuts Don't Require Increasing The Debt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Semper911

I don’t know whether that’s accurate or not. However, if it is, it’s terrible timing on Obama’s part.


36 posted on 08/12/2011 11:13:58 AM PDT by americanophile ("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: chuckee

Didn’t another court rule that the individual mandate component couldn’t be split from the bill as a whole?


37 posted on 08/12/2011 11:15:15 AM PDT by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

I agree, but SCOTUS may still kill the whole thing. In any event, the law without the mandate will prove wildly unpopular for the exact reasons you point out. It won’t survive.


38 posted on 08/12/2011 11:15:58 AM PDT by americanophile ("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

I don’t remember where I read it, but I just remember fuming about it. I will try to find a source. Someone here must know something about it.


39 posted on 08/12/2011 11:16:57 AM PDT by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: chuckee
That is the beauty of this ruling. It's court talk for, I take one leg out from your 3 legged stool.

The USSC can now just say,”we agree with the lower courts ruling on the Individual Mandate” and Obamacare is dead.

40 posted on 08/12/2011 11:17:40 AM PDT by tobyhill (Real Spending Cuts Don't Require Increasing The Debt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

Great news but this should get fast tracked to SCOTUS and be once and for all declared unconstitutional now!


41 posted on 08/12/2011 11:18:23 AM PDT by CaroleL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

Oh yeah!


42 posted on 08/12/2011 11:18:55 AM PDT by null and void (Day 932. The mob is decisive when the law is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
Without the individual mandate then the whole thing goes down in flames. You will still be left with millions who go without insurance and therefor very high premiums for those who do purchase it. The entire Obamacare is unworkable. They primarily pushed it so that the illegals would get “free” healthcare. That's what this was all about.
43 posted on 08/12/2011 11:20:18 AM PDT by Flavious_Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

Yeah,
How about that.
Hope it is giving the creep an ulcer.


44 posted on 08/12/2011 11:20:33 AM PDT by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) Don't trust the F.B.I. the C.I.A. and specially the B.A.T.F.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
"The concept of the individual federal mandate is perhaps the most dangerous in our lifetimes. It would completely eviscerate the Constitution."

They force us at the point of a gun to buy Social Security and Medicare. How is this any different?

So, I guess if you don't work, you don't have to 'buy' Social Security and Medicare.......You can just starve to death.

SCOTUS is going to have to thread a needle here because Medicare and Social Security are BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
45 posted on 08/12/2011 11:21:31 AM PDT by Electric Graffiti (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their Moonbats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
This court did SCOTUS a big favor because they narrowed what SCOTUS will have to rule on thus ultimately killing Obamacare without a convoluted ruling.
46 posted on 08/12/2011 11:21:54 AM PDT by tobyhill (Real Spending Cuts Don't Require Increasing The Debt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Agreed. This is a narrowly tailored ruling, which is appropriate, and it’s a perfect basis upon which SCOTUS can affirm.


47 posted on 08/12/2011 11:23:37 AM PDT by americanophile ("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: pieceofthepuzzle

I am not sure. Another Federal Appellate Court in DC ruled in favor of the law as a whole. The question of severabilty there would be moot because they upheld the entire law and did not have to consider severability. Now that there is an appellate court in Atlanta that disagrees with them, the SC has to consider the case.That is good.


48 posted on 08/12/2011 11:27:10 AM PDT by chuckee (mouthing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Electric Graffiti
I agree that that's also unconstitutional, but at very least it's a byproduct of the legitimate federal taxing authority. This creates, out of whole cloth, what amounts to an order from the federal government to purchase a private commodity, just because they say so. They could order you to do anything under this authority were it allowed to stand. All these programs may be coercive, but the latter has zero legal foundation - it's absolute tyranny.
49 posted on 08/12/2011 11:29:14 AM PDT by americanophile ("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

Really? I thought that the way Congress enacted Obamacare had a legal flaw in it that made it "all or nothing." This was a consequence of them ramming it through so quickly because they didn't want the public to know what was in it.

Anyone else know what I am talking about or heard this?

50 posted on 08/12/2011 11:32:29 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-185 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