Judge in Va. strikes down federal health care law

Ap/YahooNews ^ | 12/13/10 | Larry O'Dell

[johniegrad]

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.

[Indy Pendance]

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.

[Indy Pendance]

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

[djf]

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!

[Indy Pendance]

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

[Varsity Flight]

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

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

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.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

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.

[golfisnr1]

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

[johniegrad]

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.

[pghoilman]

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

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

Yes. I believe this will be the outcome.

[republicangel]

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

[Principled]

Scalia
Roberts
Alito
Thomas

Kennedy

Breyer
Ginsberg
Sotomayor
Kagan

---

Kennedy will likely go our way :)

[Red_Devil 232]

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

Huh?????

[eyedigress]

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.

[Jeff Winston]

FINALLY!

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

Wow.

[April Lexington]

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...

[mel]

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

[jd777]

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