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

A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: bhohealthcare; bushappointee; bushjudge; cuccinelli; federalism; gwb; healthcare; lawsuit; obamacare; presidentgeorgewbush; spartansixdelta; va
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 last
To: VRWCTexan

“Affordable” care, that you must buy or go to jail act.


101 posted on 12/13/2010 1:17:54 PM PST by matt04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
The Obamacare individual mandate requires that you purchase something from a particular vendor.

If that is true, you're right. I thought that you had to purchase something from one of the insurance companies in the exchange, but you get to choose which one.

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.

Assuming we're talking about a partial (or full) SS privatization plan that requires you to invest in a certain class of securities or something, it looks at least something like being required to purchase an insurance policy from a list of vendors that meets certain criteria.

I don't like either one of them. I'm just trying to think through legally the ramifications of a decision either way. And the problem is that this whole distinction between the "tax" power and the power to do things directly that is at the heart of this seems artificial and extra-constitutional to me. "We can tax you, and do whatever we want with your money. We just can't tell you what to do with it before we actually take it." The real issue should be what is being mandated, not on who theoretically controls the money, because in either case, the government actually controls the money anyway.

102 posted on 12/13/2010 1:23:53 PM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Gadsden1st
I guess we will wind up having thousands of threads on this.

You say that like it's a bad thing. This is splendid news.

103 posted on 12/13/2010 1:34:54 PM PST by MyIndianNameIsSwimsWithSharks (Confucius say: Those who swim with sharks often end up sleeping with the fishes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

That’s a good first step.

But how many of the 1000 some odd appeals are we going to win?


104 posted on 12/13/2010 1:38:18 PM PST by Tzimisce (It's just another day in Obamaland.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer
The title is deceiving. More than likely, the judge struck down parts of the "health" care law, not the entire monstrosity. I thought there was a severability clause build in.
105 posted on 12/13/2010 1:40:39 PM PST by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

There is no severability clause in the bill. However, only one part was struck down. See post #84.


106 posted on 12/13/2010 1:55:07 PM 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 105 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

You are correct of course. The court will not overturn Obamacare because then they will have to revisit all the other unconstitutional power grabs like social security and medicare.

To a lot of the nutless black-robed maggots, Stare decisis—precidence is more important than Originalism.

I hope I’m wrong. It’s the Kennedy court. Does he have the brass ones to reverse 60 years on unconstitutional law?
To put a STOP SIGN in this Socialist fork in the road?


107 posted on 12/13/2010 2:04:04 PM PST by Electric Graffiti (I'm armed and Amish.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

EXCELLENT NEWS!!!
What’s the process now? I would think the Feds will appeal this decision? I’m just curious how long it will take before the insurance companies can go back to doing business as before (although I have a feeling that perhaps my premiums will NOT go back down???).


108 posted on 12/13/2010 2:06:02 PM PST by LibertyRocks (Anti-Obama Gear: http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

Its a step in the right direction, but if 2 crooked liberal hack judges have upheld 0-care, what will happen? The bill is clearly unconstitutional.


109 posted on 12/13/2010 2:32:51 PM PST by Celtic Cross (I AM the Impeccable Hat. (AKA The Pope's Hat))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Electric Graffiti
You are correct of course. The court will not overturn Obamacare because then they will have to revisit all the other unconstitutional power grabs like social security and medicare. To a lot of the nutless black-robed maggots, Stare decisis—precidence is more important than Originalism. I hope I’m wrong. It’s the Kennedy court. Does he have the brass ones to reverse 60 years on unconstitutional law? To put a STOP SIGN in this Socialist fork in the road?

Well, I hope I'm wrong. The only real hope is that they focus on the "mandate" as somehow being constitutionally different from establishing a program directly with tax dollars. Oddly, though I think this law should be unconstitutional, focusing on this "mandate" angle that doesn't appear to have any particularly constitutional basis would mean we're inventing one bogus constitutional doctrine to kill another.

Makes my head hurt.

110 posted on 12/13/2010 3:20:54 PM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer
Wow, after all these years I finally figured out who she reminded me of...


111 posted on 12/13/2010 3:39:52 PM PST by StAnDeliver (\)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer
Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research Membership Recovery Act Allocates $1.1 Billion for Comparative Effectiveness Research

LINK

Obamacare Endgame: Doctors Will be Fined or Jailed if they Put Patients First by Dr. Elaina George
LINK

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan
LINK

OBAMACARE’S LETHAL THIRD RAIL SHOCK TO COME
LINK

Toll-Free number to the Congressional Switchboard
(866) 338-1015

202-224-6121 DeMint
202-225-3021 Pence
202-225-6205 Boehner
202-225-2331 Bachmann

112 posted on 12/13/2010 4:11:38 PM PST by GailA (NO JESUS, NO CHRISTmas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cycle of discernment

I said at the time this passed that the most powerful man in America is a Kennedy.

Not John, Robert or Ted the Dead Kennedys....

The Kennedy on the SCOTUS.


113 posted on 12/13/2010 4:39:09 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084 (Beware of the Socialist Government-Academia Grant Junkie-Rich "non-profit"-Liberal Media Complex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All

“I believe right now the battle of our time is the battle of liberty against the overreach of the federal government,” he says. “I wouldn’t pick any other four-year period to be in this office.” Ken Cuccinelli

An interesting biographical article about Ken (with pictures).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072304025.html


114 posted on 12/13/2010 5:14:26 PM PST by deks ("...the battle of our time is the battle of liberty against the overreach of the federal government")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance

Excuse me, but where did I say I was going to give in because 5 people told me to do so? If the courts rule against us, we tell the Congress and Senate that we don’t care how the courts ruled and to repeal the Obamacare bill because if they don’t, we will make sure their political careers are over. That’s a far cry from “giving in.” That’s giving the finger to the courts and demanding the politicians listen to us.


115 posted on 12/13/2010 5:49:46 PM PST by goldi (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: goldi

I meant you in the generic sense. Sorry you mistook my comment. And I’m with you, as in personally, I’m ready to keep the fight going. I’m sick and tired of the rulers.


116 posted on 12/13/2010 5:52:57 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

Let’s hope he’s upheld. Federal power needs to be reigned in.


117 posted on 12/13/2010 6:28:07 PM PST by newzjunkey (expired "Bush tax cut" = Obama Tax Increase)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mmercier

It is nothing new to have judges who “read the election returns” as Mr Dooley said.

But having these battles fought in court rather than on the battlefield prevents civil war.


118 posted on 12/13/2010 9:47:28 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer
God Bless Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli and U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson. This is a memorable day in our Revolution. Keep fighting. . .


119 posted on 12/13/2010 9:48:02 PM PST by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: All
From Mark Levin:

"Today Judge Hudson ruled against the Obama Administration on three essential points involving Obamacare: 1. Individuals who do not actively participate in commerce -- that is, who do not voluntarily purchase health insurance -- cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the United State Constitution's Commerce Clause, and there is no Supreme Court precedent providing otherwise; 2. The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution cannot be used as a backdoor means to enforce a statute that is not otherwise constitutional under Congress's enumerated powers; and 3. There is a difference between a tax and a penalty, there is much Supreme Court precedent in this regard, and the penalty provision in Obamacare is not a tax but a penalty and, therefore, is unconstitutional for it is applied to individuals who choose not to purchase health care.

"Judge Hudson's ruling against the Obama Administration and for the Commonwealth of Virginia gives hope that the rule of law and the Constitution itself still have meaning. Landmark Legal Foundation has filed several amicus briefs in this case, at the request of the Commonwealth, and will continue to provide support in the likely event the Commonwealth is required to defend this decision in the Fourth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. Landmark would also like to congratulate Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and the excellent lawyers in his office for their superb legal skills.

"It is a great day for the rule of law and the citizenry. Judge Hudson's ruling is ironclad, and General Cuccinelli deserves an enormous amount of credit for taking on this matter. We look forward to continuing to work with him."

120 posted on 12/13/2010 10:04:25 PM PST by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: All
To SCOTUS and then Bury it!


121 posted on 12/13/2010 10:16:45 PM PST by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

I have had that thought. Sounds like the libs are in for a crisis. And we know that they never let a good crisis go to waste. Seems they always put themselves in a win-win situation. What will be up their sleaves now?


122 posted on 12/13/2010 11:04:36 PM PST by del4hope (Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus....for now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance

No offense. At least my congressman said today that he will do everything he can to dismantle this thing. I’m going to give his office a call today.


123 posted on 12/14/2010 5:56:11 AM PST by goldi (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: bigtoona
How do you eat an Elephant? - One bite at a time of course!

Might want to kill it first. Sounds like "Man vs Food".

124 posted on 12/14/2010 6:03:14 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mel

Mel,
Many suits have been brought against this law. I am not sure how many, but they number in the dozens. Some have been dismissed already. One was brought by Liberty University. Others have been brought by individuals and businesses. The ruling yesterday is the first brought by a State. The hearing this Thursday is the biggest yet, as 20 states, 32 U.S. Senators and the Speaker in Waiting John Boehner are either plaintiffs or friend of the Court filers.
IN SUMMARY: The flow is that the cases that survive the district (lower) level without being dismissed will perhaps be merged and heard at the Appellate level. The Appeals Courts can 1) Hear arguments 2) Not hear and let lower ruling stand or 3) Not hear and refer case directly to the Supreme court.
** Keep an eye on Judge Roger Vinson’s Court (the 20 states case). This one will hold the most impact. The Appellate Court over the Northern District of Florida is the Fifth Circuit out of Atlanta. The Supreme Court justice with jurisdiction over Florida is Anthony Kennedy.
Cheers,
Kate


125 posted on 12/14/2010 6:08:00 AM PST by katieanna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: katieanna

Thanks, I really had no idea how it flowed, i kept hearing federal court in the other 2 judgements and didn’t understand process.


126 posted on 12/14/2010 6:41:48 AM PST by mel (since progressive is code word for anti- i am a progressive progressive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: goldi

I am not so sure of that right now. I will be and obvious 5-4 decision either way, with the four leftists on the court, however, Kennedy is the key justice in this case. He may vote with the four conservative justices.


127 posted on 12/14/2010 7:17:36 AM PST by FutureRocketMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AU72

God Forbid anything such as this happen. That is truly NOT the American way to deal with one’s opponents, left or right.


128 posted on 12/14/2010 7:22:18 AM PST by FutureRocketMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

it’s would have been interesting to have had South Carolina be at the front of this legal challenge to the HCO (Healthcare overhaul). It was South Carolina that went against the federal government and broke from the United States first in 1860, defining itself as a stubborn, headstrong state.


129 posted on 12/14/2010 7:26:02 AM PST by FutureRocketMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Principled

From the article:

“Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government’s reach.”

Regarding your list of supreme court justices, do you know their records when it comes to interpreting the commerce clause?

As you know, the Supreme Court, since the 1930’s has given the government extreme leeway in its definitions and discussions of the interstate commerce clause so as to avoid overturning federal legislation. Have the four “conservative” judges taken issue with that way of thinking? It would be quite an about-face on the part of the court to overrule Obamacare on that basis, given its prior deference, and would call into question a lot of other federal legislation, I would think.


130 posted on 12/14/2010 9:11:24 AM PST by freethinker_for_freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: freethinker_for_freedom

i do not know their commerce clause positions...

and i agree that the clause has been given unbounded leeway. but this is fining for failing to engage in commerce. that would fit into the “no commerce clause”, but not the commerce clause - notwithstanding fining individuals for making a particular purchasing [or non purchasing] choice is way illegal. it’s way different.

no way commerce clause can be used to regulate this.

im uneducated o


131 posted on 12/14/2010 9:59:25 AM PST by Principled (Get the capital back! NRST!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: NRG1973

Virtually all bills, like contracts, contain severability clauses. It’s standard boilerplate.


132 posted on 12/14/2010 11:31:34 AM PST by henkster (A broken government does not merit full faith and credit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer
President Obama's press secretary, predictably enough, has gone into Full Spin mode: Two other courts have already found the legislation constitutional, so the administration still leads, two-to-one. Or so the rationalization goes.

If this were the World Series, that might make some sense: Indeed, it would be a good thing to be up, two games to one.

But that is really not how this works.

Eventually, it will make its way to the US Supreme Court. There was never much uncertainty about this; but given the fact that there is now a split decision among the lower federal courts, it is a virtual certainty.

Some Republican lawmakers have asked that the SCOTUS take the case on an expedited basis, thereby bypassing the appeals court. Whether this will happen, I really do not know. However, even if it does happen, we could be looking at a time frame of another 12-18 months before the case is reviewed.

I am certainly no legal scholar; but it is my understanding that this legislation does not contain the usual "severability clause" that would allow the bulk of the law to stand, even if a part of it were found to be unconstitutional. So if the SCOTUS agrees with this court that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the entire law must fall, according to my understanding of the matter.

Some people believe that this was a mere oversight on the part of the crafters of the law. If it was, then it is an indication of terrible sloppiness. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that these folks meant to force the hand of the Court--something like a prosecuting attorney that removes lesser charges from the indictment, so that the jury may not issue a "compromise" verdict.

Do others know anything more about this?

133 posted on 12/14/2010 2:17:43 PM PST by AmericanExceptionalist (Democrats believe in discussing the full spectrum of ideas, all the way from far left to center-left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


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