-
Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?
May 20, 2013 | 6 comments
-
The Grand Old Poseurs
May 13, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Obamacare Pimps Smear Lipstick on Another Pig
May 6, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?
April 29, 2013 | 88 comments
-
GOP at Fault for Obamacare Train Wreck?
April 22, 2013 | 106 comments
The Right Prescription
Obamacare Unconstitutional? Roger That!
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson invokes severability to strike down entire reform law.
Ian Gershengorn, the government lawyer charged with defending ObamaCare in State of Florida v. U.S. Department Health and Human Services, probably knew he was in for a shellacking when in a December hearing Judge Roger Vinson started talking about broccoli. The basis of Florida’s challenge to ObamaCare is its claim that the law’s requirement that all Americans buy health insurance is unconstitutional because Congress has no legitimate power to impose such a mandate. Revealing some sympathy with this position, Judge Vinson asked the hapless DOJ attorney, “If they decided everybody needs to eat broccoli because broccoli makes us healthy, they could mandate that everybody has to eat broccoli each week?” Gershengorn lamely responded that the health care market has unique qualities that necessitate the mandate. “It is not shoes, it is not cars, it is not broccoli.”
This answer was obviously not very convincing to the Judge. On Monday, Vinson found in favor of Florida and the twenty-five other states that have joined its lawsuit, ruling that the so-called individual mandate is unconstitutional. Moreover, he went further than U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, who recently ruled against the Obama administration in a similar case filed by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Whereas Hudson was content to strike down only the mandate, allowing the remaining provisions of ObamaCare to stand, Judge Vinson refused to ignore the law’s lack of a severability clause. He held that the absence of such language, which would protect the other provisions of PPACA if the mandate is declared invalid, required him to strike down the entire health care law: “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void.”
And the news gets even worse for President Obama and his health care bureaucrats. Vinson, following the example of Judge Hudson in Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, declined to grant the plaintiffs an outright injunction against ObamaCare. However, he did place a substantial speed bump in its path by awarding them “declaratory relief.” This, as the judge phrased it, is the “functional equivalent of an injunction” because there is a presumption that “officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court.” The administration will no doubt seek a stay from a higher court while the inevitable appeals progress through the courts. But Vinson’s choice of words suggests that, until such a stay is granted, Kathleen Sebelius, Donald Berwick, and the rest of Obama’s apparatchiks would do well to halt implementation of the “reform” law.
This and other plaintiff-friendly aspects of the ruling notwithstanding, Judge Vinson’s decision did provide a significant disappointment for the twenty-six states participating in the case. These states joined Florida in this lawsuit primarily to fight the “coercion and commandeering” by the federal government pursuant to the Medicaid program. ObamaCare is projected to add 16 million Americans to the program, but does not provide enough funding to cover them. The Obama administration argues that states can pull out of the joint federal-state program if they don’t like the expansion mandated by the law, and the judge agreed: “[Judge Vinson] dismissed the contention that states were being illegally coerced by the federal government. He said they always have the option, however impractical, to withdraw from Medicaid, a joint state and federal insurance program for those with low-incomes.”
Beyond this faint silver lining, however, Monday’s ruling was another in a growing list of disasters for the Obama administration and its signature domestic “achievement.” The supporters of ObamaCare will, of course, loudly dismiss it as another “stray decision… by a conservative trial judge,” and we should expect to see a lot of “news” stories about the fact that Judge Vinson bears the ultimate mark of Cain: he was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Indeed, the usual suspects have already labeled him the “Tea Party” judge. We have been here before, of course. This is the same playbook they used when Judge Henry Hudson issued his ruling in the Virginia case. The shrillness of their response, however, makes it clear that they are worried. The virtual certainty that the issue will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court obviously has them biting their nails. And well it should.
Even if some provisions of ObamaCare survive an encounter with the high court, the law’s linchpin is probably a goner. The individual mandate would penalize individuals for not engaging in economic activity, and the Obama administration claims such penalties are permitted by the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. But, as Brooklyn Law School’s Jason Mazzone recently wrote in the New York Times, the Supreme Court has never issued a ruling that supports such an Orwellian application of that much-abused passage: “All of the Supreme Court cases upholding Congress’s power under the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause have involved Congress regulating some kind of activity that is already occurring.” This, as Mazzone goes on to point out, “provides a way for the justices to strike down the individual mandate without having to overturn any precedent.”
While we wait for the Florida and Virginia cases to wind their way to their inevitable destination, try to imagine Ian Gershengorn and his DOJ colleagues poring over the 78 pages of Judge Vinson’s ruling and hitting the following passage: “I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate … stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.’” Upon reading that passage, Gershengorn probably had the same sinking feeling he experienced when Judge Vinson began asking him questions about vegetables during last December’s hearing.
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (106) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/01/obamacare-unconstitutional-rog
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
jd| 2.1.11 @ 6:19AM
As I read the full text of Judge Vinson's ruling, I was struck by its pure brilliance. How ironic as we celebrate Reagan's centennial, we the people, are the ones getting the birthday present from Ronald Reagan through his choice of an excellent jurist. Kagan should take note.
ggoblue| 2.1.11 @ 8:56AM
great point...its hard to tar and feather this judge as a reaganite while with the next breath you are claiming the president to be 'another reagan'.
isnt it amazing how they paint themselves into corners?
Paul D| 2.1.11 @ 11:17AM
Oh, the many ways Obama has been hoisted on his own petard here.
MTB| 2.1.11 @ 4:27PM
Would "the chickens are coming home to roost" also apply here?
Impeach Don't Wait| 2.1.11 @ 7:52PM
"How ironic as we celebrate Reagan's centennial, we the people, are the ones getting the birthday present from Ronald Reagan through his choice of an excellent jurist."
Now that my friend is an uplifting statement. Makes me kind of do a little dance inside.
Appleby| 2.1.11 @ 6:39AM
The Canadians in my law office are puzzled and stunned; one young lawyer, however, opined that if socialist medicine was to be suggested in Canada today, it would never pass.
Perhaps even the socialists are beginning to wake up and smell the burning building they are in.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.1.11 @ 7:00AM
Mr. Catron,
Thank you, and God bless Ronald Reagan's appointed Judge.
Gatorjoe| 2.1.11 @ 4:07PM
I'd like to see an analysis of the likely opinions of the individual Supreme Court Justices regarding the mandate. I personally think a majority will rule against it.
Al Adab| 2.1.11 @ 6:28PM
It would be 5-4 upholding the bill, too many partisan ideologues (including Kagan who should recuse) sit on the court. Sad but true.
Impeach Don't Wait| 2.1.11 @ 8:01PM
Yeah, but after Judge Vinson's clear and reasonable ruling, wouldn't it show just how out of touch the Supreme Court is with the ideals upon which this country was founded? It would be pretty hard to deny. The clear demonstration that they're only good for rubber-stamping the socialist agenda could be their eventual undoing. (One would hope.) Just another area of government needing reform...
Ret. Marine| 2.1.11 @ 7:22AM
I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on the boob-tube or any place else. Even I could understand the Commerce clause was not going to hold water on this one. I find rather disturbing that the entire 111th Congress wasted how much money I can't fathom and two years talking out the wrong orifice to tell us what we already knew, after all they had to pass it to lean what was in it, remember, yeah that was right up there with the comment out of piglousy, are you serious, are you serious. Good grief the dems are truly off their med's and they kept telling me I didn't know or understand what the Constitution means. Freaks. These crooks need to be taken to the wood shed and sued for the waste of the taxpayers money, I call it Quill treason with no reason.
MikeD| 2.1.11 @ 8:19AM
Ret. Marine;
Your problem with this is that you are an intelligent, lucid adult. First, drug yourself crazy to reduce your intelligence by 50%. Then, read (And try to believe!) 100,000 words from left wing propaganda extolling the wonders of barrycare. Then, wander the streets in a drug induced stupor wimpering "No Nukes! Save the Whales! and What about the Children?" Finally, watch nothing but Sesame Street for five years. Then, and only then, will you begin to get the smallest realization of how barry and his other dems think.
By the way, there is no such thing as a retired Marine. Being a Marine is forever! Having served as a Marine will make it impossible for you to EVER think like barry and his libtards!
SEMPER FI
Stan Redmond| 2.1.11 @ 10:11AM
But think of the 26 year old children with a dream of being a musician or artist who won't have to worry about health insurance.......
Spoonman| 2.1.11 @ 11:14AM
Not to mention that Ret. Marine and Old Texican have good old commonsense! That is something that is in mighty short supply in Obama's administration and in the democrat party.
MikeD| 2.1.11 @ 1:27PM
Amen! Common sense is aa attribute that is sorely lacking in our whole society since the lefties grabbed hold of our educational establishment and media. Trying to make a lib understand facts is like trying to train a box turtle to walk a tightrope!
gilbert| 2.1.11 @ 7:24PM
MIKED. Your comments are kooky.
MikeD| 2.1.11 @ 8:59PM
Gilbert,
Thanks for the memory. I haven't heard that word ("kooky") since Edd Byrnes used it as an alias! Can you be that old?
gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 4:54PM
=)
DaPicayune| 2.1.11 @ 7:22AM
Mr. Catron, regarding Justice Kagan, will she not be required to recuse herself from participating in hearing this case at SCOTUS, as she was involved with this litigation as a defendant prior to being approved by the Senate in August '10 as a Supreme? Will this obvious conflict not reduce the Court to 8 justices presiding, 4 being conservative and Justice Kennedy being the swing vote? Inquiring minds, you know!
MikeD| 2.1.11 @ 8:22AM
What would the libtards and their willing lackies in the lamestream media do if she were a Conservative? Remember Justice Thomas and the 'high tech lynching' the dems and lefties put him through because he wasn't a submissive plantation ni**er that the Dems need to stay in power. (Asterisks courtesy of our recent loss of our freedom of speech.)
Look up what LBJ said after he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It wasn't pretty; but it sure was instructive.
Harry the Horrible| 2.1.11 @ 9:51AM
I am pretty certain Kagan will not recuse herself;
the conservatives already have four votes on this - Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. That leaves it four to four with Kennedy as the swing vote.
I'm wondering how this regime will get to him before the SCOTUS makes their decision.
A. C. Santore| 2.1.11 @ 10:31AM
Remember this. If Justice Kagan recuses herself, then a 4-4 tie would result in the lower case ruling standing - without comment.
The Florida case MUST make it to the Supreme Court before the two cases in which Obamacare was held to be constitutional.
jolizoom| 2.1.11 @ 2:01PM
I doubt that she would recuse herself... because as everyone knows, there is no such thing as conflict of interest where dems are concerned.
gilbert| 2.1.11 @ 7:21PM
that's just plain DUMB. i don't think any supreme court justices that made W president recused themselves. you would think because they were appointed by GOP presidents?
anyway, check yourself - recusing is just plain dumb.
MikeD| 2.1.11 @ 9:06PM
Aha! You 'outed' yourself gilbert. If you had either actually read any accounts of the 2000 election, or had any common sense, you'd never make yourself look so ignorant with your lame comment. EVERY recount showed, even to the New York Times' satisfaction, that Bush won Florida, and therefore, the 2000 election. Only the "move-on.org" fanatics still indulge in that fantasy. What they were so pi$$ed off about was that they got caught cheating; and, for a change, didn't get away with it. Then, of course, just think about what kind of shape we'd be in if algore had managed to steal the election. Eight long years of cap and tax even though glo-bull warming has been scientifically proven to be a fraud concocted with doctored data by crooked pseudo-scientists.
Judging by the 'quality' of your writing, I'd guess you're either about 14 years old using mom's computer, or a 45 year old career welfare recipient who could never hold a job.
gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 5:32PM
sticks and stones! haha. i'm not either one silly man. re: florida recount - it was shady and you know it. all the wranglings around "voter intent" and the butterfly chads...lot of legal interpretations circumvented "voter intent." but you're right, W won it fair and square - just like obama will when the supreme court rules healthcare reform constitutional. i better see you on this blog when the day comes! i'll be here.
actually, i am living the LIFE. always been employed and the only welfare i have EVER received was in the form of pell and state grants (not to mention subsidized loans) to go to college - university yall! and i'm not talking some lame university of phoenix crap either. i'm the real deal: legit =]
i'm in my 30's and people call me old - how dare they?! i broke into six figures (that's six digits, fyi) 3 years ago and during a recession. now i own property, stock, have a savings, spend money, eat out, etc.
i just care about my fellow americans - including the ones that are poor and uninsured. who knows? maybe in 30 years when you're dead and i'll go conservative because a new wave of young americans are going to want to do something "progressive" and i'll think on my 2nd amendment remedies to stop the madness!!!! for now, i'm telling every conservative on this blog here - years from now, a lot of us will look back at this and wonder why you all were so mean...it's like watching the movie "remember the titans" and wondering how anyone could ever be like that...you know?
out with the old, and in with the new. see you next post =)
i do love you, you grumpy man. and no, i'm not gay - not that there is anything wrong with that!
Jay Dee| 2.5.11 @ 7:05PM
Sorry I'm late to the party but Gilbert you should ask for a refund on your legit college education. I think you not only screwed up your college education but also flunked grade school English, you know?
Mimi| 2.1.11 @ 7:28AM
Since early 2009....our freedom and Liberty instincts have been under continuous assault by this administration, Pelosi and REED. What rights will they not try to steal from us. Finally as things work there way through the courts....we are seeing day-light! American Justice came in a BIG way yesterday....On the eve of REAGAN'S 100th birthday a GREAT GIFT! How prophetic!!
You can't tell me, that this great country isn't BLESSED by the HAND OF PROVIDENCE.!!
gilbert| 2.1.11 @ 7:19PM
i like this post - it's a happy post! better than being grumpy and bitter because you don't really understand 21st century american politics. i mean, the legislative, judicial and executive branches...wait, that's been around since 1776? i dont remember...but a long time now though.
MikeD| 2.1.11 @ 8:11AM
While I am as pleased by Judge Vinson's ruling as the rest of Americans who actually understand the Constitution; I am still worried about two very large things:
First, this president and his allies in the democratic party don't give one damn for the law; regardless of whether it is local, state, or federal. Any rebuff to obama's demented 'vision' for the dismanteling of America is merely treated as a temporary speedbump until the emperor can issue an executive order or turn it over to one of his regulatory lapdogs for an 'end run'.
Second, the four libs on the court are completely oblivious to the existence of the Constitution of the United States and generally incompetent to decide anything more important than their lunch selection. Elena Kagan must recuse herself because she is not basically qualified to sit on ANY bench, much less the SCOTUS; and was such an insider she'd NEVER even pretend to be ojcective. Remember, three of these libtards on the Court voted to make the Second Amendment unconstitutional.
Obama and his fellow thugs have proven time after time that they care for one thing only; imposing their particular vision of the future on the rest of us. Barry and his gang will NEVER let anything get in the way of their cherished dictatorship. We must stay vigilant. We live in dangerous enough times without having an incompetent socialist in the White House.
Doctor Simplicity| 2.1.11 @ 8:42AM
Amen to your comments. What is really shocking is the fact that if and when this makes it way to the Supreme Court, the vote to rule Obamacare as unconsitutional will not be a unanimous decision as it should be, but will actually be a 5 to 4 decision (if Kennedy votes correctly), meaning that four judges either do not understand the Constitution or do not believe in the Constitution. Shocking! Throw in President Kim Il Obama and his band of marxist thugs and you have a very dangerous mix.
Indy| 2.1.11 @ 9:38AM
For those of us who believe in prayer, remember our Supreme Court Justices, keep them in your prayers, you are correct, it will be a 5-4 decision, although Kagan should recuse herself on this case
MTB| 2.1.11 @ 4:33PM
Of course you're right, but if we were to dream a bit, wouldn't it be a slap in the face for the dems if the SCOTUS voted unanimously or nearly unanimously to side with Judge Vinson? There's always hope and that would be pure comedy to his/their landmark legislation.
gilbert| 2.1.11 @ 7:13PM
it should be unanimous? can you cite ONE supreme court case that has been ruled like that.
probably not. federal law, is supreme law. obey. i have and i am a happy american citizen - i'm not grumpy and bitter. join me!
gilbert| 2.1.11 @ 7:17PM
MIKED. ignorance must be BLISS. like i'm telling all you crazy passionate people here - see you on this blog until i die =] i'm going to be right (pun intended).
anyway - so somehow because you say so, the supreme court of the US is incompetent? good luck with that groundbreaking politics. i'm sure you will move and convince enough americans to side with you.
ALL PASSION, NO MERIT!
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.1.11 @ 8:17AM
Amen, Mike D
MikeD| 2.1.11 @ 8:24AM
Thanks Texican. Been a while; this getting old and sick is not a fun thing! Keep doing what you do!
Al Adab| 2.1.11 @ 1:50PM
Ken,
We haven't heard from Gill O'Teen in quite a while. Any news?
The Big E| 2.1.11 @ 8:18AM
How ironic it is (and how entertaining) to hear left wingers, who have for so long relied on the Judiciary to implement its policies by decree, complain about an "activist" judge.
This ruling is a triumph for the American people, the Constitution, and the American legal system. That said, I would still rather the Congress abolish this abomination.
By the way, any bets on whether the Obama administration will abide by the Court's ruling pending appeal?
Indy| 2.1.11 @ 9:41AM
Mark Levine said on his radio show last night that if The Administration marches on with the implementation of Obamacare, the same states in the lawsuit should go back to court to seek a court order forcing them to stop. It's worth listening to his show, you can go to his webpage and download the audio
Harvey| 2.1.11 @ 3:42PM
It's Mark Levin, not Levine
Redstateboy| 2.1.11 @ 2:32PM
Yeah! I laughed too when I heard their whining.. "Judicial Activism"?? What Gall these people have!! Mass. Supreme Court Rules that Gays are entitled to be Married? the 9th Circus Court of Appeals overrules the will of the people in CA. who voted to Amend their State Constitution as to what constitutes a "Marriage" and the Liber-uls are concerned about "Judicial Activism" ??!!?
Brian Mc| 2.1.11 @ 8:47AM
I like to believe that common sense will rule over emotional drivel but we must remain dilligent-we might still need to storm the gates. God is helping us...thank you Ronnie!
gilbert| 2.1.11 @ 7:11PM
have you seen god lately? how do you know he's helping ronnie? what ever happend to evidence?
i thought charlatans were a 20th century thing...
beebop| 2.2.11 @ 5:11AM
you really don't need to make rebuttal to every comment with which you don't agree. Muttering to yourself is more effective than muttering outloud in some instances. As here .....
gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 5:02PM
hey, thanks for the input. noted.
Reality Bites| 2.1.11 @ 8:47AM
Let me put this as delicately as I can... that worthless little twit in the White House can kiss this grandmother's hot cross buns because I'm not going to be FORCED to buy anything I don't want to buy. I'd rather rot in jail than give up my rights and my freedom. The Tea Party rallies will look puny compared to the revolution that will come if Obama tries to enforce this ill conceived mandate.
gilbert| 2.1.11 @ 7:09PM
all due respect, too much medication there. that won't happen - there will not be a revolution. revolution? come on! where was the revolution when states started requirng driving to have mandatory insurance? yeah...um...there was none. a whole big hollar - that's all.
i'll be on this blog until i die and you'll see i'm right. i hope to see you eat some humble pie.
MikeD| 2.1.11 @ 9:10PM
gilbert;
I hope you have fun playing with your intellectual superiors until you actually get old enough to vote in 5 or 6 years. Who knows, you might actually learn something from your 'betters' here at Am Spec. But don't stay up too late; it's a school night.
gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 5:09PM
bwahahaha. i voted for both bushes, clinton, and obama. i'm not stuck in some neo-conservative fear bunker. i vote for what makes sense - i'm not stuck in the past. oatmeal all day is comforting but come on...anyway.
i am learning something here on AmSpec. it's that there is a lot of anger and awkward, weird puns on words like healthcare, liberals, etc. also, there is a lot of passion but no merit...just passion...well..you know, that's actually good...for you...having some passion as opposed to just being...stuck.
beebop| 2.2.11 @ 5:16AM
It is the other (and I believe intended) consequences that will occur without a challenge based upon constitutionality that have me concerned. Does it make economic sense? NO. Do I get to keep my private insurance if I like it? NOT necessarily.
I say "intended," because I believe that they knew that great numbers of companies -- large and small -- would pick the penality versus continuing to cover their workforce (too bad more in the 0bama madministration haven't participated in workforce) with the health care coverage many of us enjoy (some as retirees). Single payer is in our future unless this morass is set aside ... and quickly!
Al Adab| 2.1.11 @ 10:14AM
Twenty seven states stand in opposition to this tyrannical overreach. Fifty four Senators represent those states. Those gentlemen need to be on notice that their duty is to maintain the position of their states. Lets us hope for thirty three, enough to force an amendment should that be necessary. We cannot put our trust in the Supreme Court, for their ruling is all too likely to be a political rather than a legal one. What position will the states take if the Court affirms the mandate? At least two of those states held voter referrenda on the bill and it was rejected by the voters. That is a clear message that no matter what the Court might hold, the people will not comply.
Anthony| 2.1.11 @ 10:35AM
Well, with another blizzard upon us, what's that you say Algore, wherever the hell your hiding, I'll have time to download and digest Judge Vinson's decision.
From reading some emails I've gotten from fellow lawyers I respect, it appears Judge Vison has given the Justice Department and the Lecturer at Law, Professor Obozo, an exegetical primer in the Constitutional history of the Commerce Clause.
Not to mention, this Reagan appointee appears to have a wry sense of humor, using the president's own words against him.
It's not nice to taunt the Pretender-In-Chief, oh hell, yes it is!!!
Anyway as some fellow posters have noted, it is simply delicious that Obozo's newly discovered hero, Ronald Reagan, gave us Judge Vinson. What will Time Magazine do for an encore? Who cares!!!
Yep, the left just keeps stepping into it each time they try their newest version of "how can we fool them today?"
NeilBJ| 2.1.11 @ 11:20AM
Whatever happened to appealing to the 10th amendent and declaring that the health care bill is not authorizied by any of the delegated powers granted to the federal government?
The irony that I see is that there is a law that prohibits selling health insurance across state lines. I'm not sure that this law is constitutional, but if you grant that it is, then there is no interstate commerce that can be regulated.
Vic| 2.1.11 @ 11:57AM
I just hope Mr. Vinson stays away from blue-dog congress people. Who knows how many unhinged leftist may be in the waiting...They can knock him off along with others and claim some government hating tea-bagger was after the blue-dog congress critter. That would automatically make it Ms. Palin's fault!
JayDick| 2.1.11 @ 12:29PM
The ironic thing about it is that this problem could easily have been avoided by changing a few words in the law, changing the penalty to a tax. Thank goodness the Democrats were too hurried, too arrogant, and too incompetent to draft the bill correctly.
ABNCP| 2.1.11 @ 12:37PM
What a mess our country is in. We have elected politicans who have put in place four justices of the Superme Court who will support a blatantly unconstitutional law because of pure ideology.
These people are in place for the rest of their lives. I do not care what case is before the Supreme Court of this country, if the matter is unconstitutional and it supports a right wing view, kill it. The same for a left wing view. Some sanity has to start being used or this country is going to be done for.
ABNCP| 2.1.11 @ 12:37PM
What a mess our country is in. We have elected politicans who have put in place four justices of the Superme Court who will support a blatantly unconstitutional law because of pure ideology.
These people are in place for the rest of their lives. I do not care what case is before the Supreme Court of this country, if the matter is unconstitutional and it supports a right wing view, kill it. The same for a left wing view. Some sanity has to start being used or this country is going to be done for.
gilbert| 2.1.11 @ 7:04PM
this is probably the smartest, most insightful comment on this blog.
everyone else is all passion, no merit and antiquated.
gilbert| 2.1.11 @ 7:04PM
this is probably the smartest, most insightful comment on this blog.
everyone else is all passion, no merit and antiquated.
Oldefarte| 2.1.11 @ 12:58PM
It is nothing other than GOVERNMENTAL WELFARECARE, seeking to use governmental power/mandate the providing of health insurance to the thirty million uninsureds through payment by forcible taxiation methods [similar to the government's AFFORDABLE HOME mandate beginning with 1977's CRA that forced banks/financials to provide mortgage loans to uncredit worthy applicants/purchasers]!!!!!!!!
Richard Baker| 2.1.11 @ 1:22PM
His Honor will be tarred and feathered by the Obamaites in every way, as if he cares. I guess there won't be a portrait of President Reagan hoisted within the Oval Office. Bonzo is truly in the White House now, isn't he?
Peppermint Tea| 2.1.11 @ 1:40PM
Thank you Roger, you just saved me future incarceration--I was planning on loudly and publicly refusing to pay. I guess now they will have to shoot me for some other violation of their government cartel.
Steve A| 2.1.11 @ 1:55PM
This judge had better start consulting with Ken Starr to prepare for what is to come.
PS: Tough week for the Bamster. Sooooo sad.
Doctor Right| 2.1.11 @ 1:56PM
Sic semper Obamus!
Jack London| 2.1.11 @ 2:52PM
Another stupid article. If you can't see that throwing out the mandate - which is vital for cost containment and keeping people out of more expensive state care - just accelerates the move to single payer then you people are just stupid article fodder.
JH| 2.1.11 @ 3:39PM
See Sowell Disciple's post below, genius. No severability clause means the whole thing is down the chute.
gilbert| 2.1.11 @ 6:59PM
that is just plain incorrect. you'll see when it gets to the supreme court.
this is a WASTE of an article because Obamacare will be upheld by the SCOTUS 5-4.
carnot| 2.2.11 @ 4:56AM
wrong.....Obamacare is going to be gutted with or without a favorable SC decision. that's what happens when 60+ of the population don't support an obvious and hugely expensive power grab.
The Dems employed a flawed strategy and they are now going to suffer the consequences.
gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 5:15PM
we shall see!
idalily| 2.1.11 @ 5:22PM
Cost containment? What weed do you smoke? We're talking about the government here. There is no such thing as cost containment.
Sowell Disciple| 2.1.11 @ 3:26PM
The incompetence shown by the lack of a severability clause is amazing beyond words. Every city, big or small, that I've dealt with has a severability clause as boilerplate in every ordinance.
Harvey| 2.1.11 @ 3:52PM
Listen to Rush Limbaugh today (2/1/11). He explains why they didn't include a severabilit clause. I think it had something to do with getting the costs down. I will have to listen to Rush again.
Curtis Rasmussen| 2.1.11 @ 7:24PM
The initial drafts contained the severability clause. However, the Dems determined that the whole bill would fail if the individual mandate was removed, so they removed any language that would allow portions of the bill to be repealed.
Consertive View| 2.1.11 @ 4:31PM
"But madam, is it Constitutional."
"Are you kidding, are you kidding?"
No, madam, we are not.
SCOTUS may realize that the politics of survival may depend on their rejection of Obammacare. Too many people are far to angry at the court as it is. To thrust this measure down American throats invites the States to impose a Constitutional resolution that could limit the power of SCOTUS. Above all else this is to be feared by the Court. The members of the Court are not stupid. Don't confuse liberalism with stupidity (though confusing it with insanity is another issue entirely.) The anger that Americans feel towards their liberal bent, and towards ObammaCare is very real, and very powerful. I suspect that the Court, in a covert manner, will realize that any decision to support ObammaCare could have, very well might have, unintended results, and those unintended results are to be feared. Ultimately, Americans rule America.
gilbert| 2.1.11 @ 7:02PM
another ignorant statement. we don't run america - politicians and the SCOTUS does.
will of the people? come on. you're talking about a civil war and that won't happen in the 21st century. what is wrong with everyone here? is this the baby boomer blog or something? everyone practically dates themselves with this stupid commentary.
Vic| 2.1.11 @ 7:13PM
Have you noticed what is happening in Egypt? Just who is stupid here?
gilbert| 2.1.11 @ 7:43PM
of cousre i know about that. but do you think that it's a possibility here in the US? you have got to be joking. and you think we may have a violent revolution over healthcare? no way. that's why it's a STUPID comment.
see you on this blog when the healthcare revolution goes down.
MikeD| 2.1.11 @ 9:17PM
gilbert,
If you really CAN read, check out the riots during the democratic convention in Chicago in 1968, and then look up what happened to many major cities after the assassination of MLK and RFK. Don't tell us it can't happen here. It has...and it may very well again if obama continues to flaunt his arrogance.
You probably never heard of him, but Carlos Santayana wrote: "Those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them." Think about it...and then learn something so you come across a little more intelligent.
carnot| 2.2.11 @ 5:00AM
MikeD...ignore the mite. he's advancing a rather sophomoric view of how power is wielded and the mechanisms available to undermine ANY piece of legislation.
gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 5:44PM
ok, here's a simple version. we got 3 branches, lobbyists, capitalism and food. that's how power is wielded.
gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 5:41PM
ok, good point but that was in the 20th century. besides, do you think most of the demographic that is against obamacare has the physical capacity and capability to be violent like you reference? after all, we're americans!
i will eat humble pie with pleasure when that day comes. see you on this blog =]
Consertive View| 2.1.11 @ 7:15PM
Now lets look at your decidedly uncivil response and see what you have said. "Is this the baby boomer blog or something?" Is there something wrong with knowing who Annette Funicello was, or remembering when the Beatles sang as a group? Perhaps age and the wisdom that age aquires is something to be scoffed at by the young. But then, that does say something about the young.
Stupid commentary? Is it stupid to think that Americans rule America. If not us, then who? We elected the members of Congress who are intent on pulling America back from the brink. That is being stupid? It is only stupid to those who believe that America should drop over the cliff and into the depths.
Before you write, my uncivil poster, you might ask yourself this simple question, who won the last election, the politicans, or the American people?
If the Left desires civil discourse, if the Left demands civil exchange of ideas, then perhaps you might leave off comments like "stupid commentary." Submit an idea, put forward a view for discussion, leave off the personal attacks. They belong in grade school, and one would assume you have passed that.
gilbert| 2.1.11 @ 7:58PM
i am sorry for making that comment - my emotions got the best of me. i guess i got caught up in all this passion with no merit. i know who she is - mickey mouse club and i took a walk a little while ago to "she loves me" on my mp3 player.
comeo on, of course i saw the house go to the GOP on 11/2010. and in 2012, the senate will go GOP. Obama will be re-elected; I'll be on this blog looking for you citing this post so you can see that i'm so smart, i can see the future. at least as far as politics are concerned!
if this is a place to vent and make up right wing lexicon, then ok - fine, i hear ya. i made the mistake of thinking that there could be some legitimate political discourse that honed around how government really works instead of trying to incite some revolution from your desk or mobile device.
SCOTUS upholds obamacare 5-4. 32 million uninsured get insurance. you pay, i pay - we all pay. a healthy american, is a spending american. god bless america and every other nation in this world - why just us?! anyway, i digressed!
sorry...5-4...see you here when it gets upheld. talk to me about your revolution then...i'm serious, see you on here then.
and i'm im wrong, i promise to be here too eating your humble pie.
carnot| 2.2.11 @ 5:02AM
yes indeed...deep analysis.
Curtis Rasmussen| 2.1.11 @ 7:34PM
You hit the nail on the head. The left demands, we the people must obey. Welcome to the United Socialist republic of America.
How very politically correct of you to bring up civility. Socialism has been proven to fail time and time again, has resulted in the deaths of millions, yet you are here proposing the same thing for America. Civility? It would be civil to throw you carpetbaggers out on yer asses.
Curtis Rasmussen| 2.1.11 @ 7:36PM
My prior statement was meant for the liberal reader-like troll working under the moniker 'Consertive View', whatever that means.
Iaidoka| 2.1.11 @ 8:35PM
Show of hands.... how many are all that confident that the supremes will rule correctly in this matter?
I'm not confident at all. McCain/Feingold? Whatever the heck that eminent domain thing was? Still all that confident?
firebrand| 2.1.11 @ 9:13PM
Iaidoka - there is always the possibility that more of them than we think are still smarting from being "wood-shedded" in public before the legislative body and all America on TV - when Obama shot off his mouth in State of the Union a year ago.
What goes around, sometimes comes around.
.
Iaidoka| 2.2.11 @ 6:50AM
Firebrand, hadn't thought of that. Not a bad point. I guess I'm just getting more and more skeptical. Hope of any return to smaller and less intrusive government is fading by the hour with me.
Yosemeti Sam| 2.1.11 @ 11:41PM
SCOTUS - 6 to 3 decision to abort BHOcare in a lovey-dovey kick-ass fashion BHO is most familiar with.
ironhorzmn| 2.1.11 @ 11:50PM
When Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court, perhaps Obama will remember his churlish and disrespectful treatment of SCOTUS in a previous SOTU speech.
Hopefully SCOTUS will too. 'The toes you step on today just might be attached to the @ss you have to kiss tomorrow.'
FREE tea| 2.2.11 @ 1:01AM
---And once this industry-scripted 'Obama-care'
farce is laid aside ---DO take up the truly, truly
disturbing and hideous matter of the Bill Gates/Rockefeller agenda for forced injections
and the overwhelming evidence of brain damaging
'side-effects'...
CHECK OUT Dr. Sherri Tenpenny's devastating
expose portfolio NOW online. ---WOE.
REMEMBER kids! ---eugenics, having shed much
of its 'unpleasant' Nazi baggage ---is just begining to bring out its RED Chinese.
UNDENIABLE
Adam Dulaski| 2.2.11 @ 3:12AM
Judge Vinson's ruling is just plain silly. If the mandate in the health insurance reform bill is unconstitutional, then medicare is unconstitutional, plain and simple. You can’t have it both ways. Anybody with a job is forced to pay into medicare: forced to buy their future health insurance from the government. The argument that conservatives are making, that this is the first time the federal government has ever tried to force americans to buy something, is just plain bunk.
According to right wing “logic,” even social security would have to go out the window. Anyone with a job is being forced to buy what is essentially an IRA.
So, nice try, Republicans. Back to the drawing board. Your activist judges can’t save you from the mandate. Which, now that I think about it, was your idea, anyway. Try to stop twisting yourselves into pretzels for the sake of hating everything Obama and the Democrats try to do.
Romney, for instance, is making an idiot of himself trying to explain why his own health insurance plan is unconstitutional at the federal level. He, like the rest of his party, is clearly taking a partisan stand, not a principled one. Even when Obama and the Democrats do something Republicans would do, like cutting taxes (half of the stimulus bill was tax cuts) or controlling medicare costs, Republicans are against it because Democrats are doing it. Principle has nothing to do with it.
carnot| 2.2.11 @ 5:05AM
no nitwit...folks oppose your hero because he is grossly incompetent: his policies have been abject failures.
gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 5:45PM
see today's finance news - abject failures might be the wrong phrase/term.
Adam Dulaski| 2.2.11 @ 3:32AM
I just noticed that Judge Vinson makes another silly distinction: the health insurance reform bill in unconstitutional, he writes, because the government is forcing people to buy something from a private company. According to that logic, a single payer plan like Canada's would be constitutional, while Obama's health insurance bill is not.
Repeal and replace...with single payer! As a small business owner, I can barely afford my crappy HMO. I'd much rather pay Canada's rate for my health insurance. I'd save about 40%, and you know what? I'd get to chose my own doctors, because everyone would be in the same plan. That's right, people. Under single payer, most of us would actually have more freedom, not less.
I know i've just rung the dinner bell for the Pavlovian right, but you might want to chew on the thought of actually being able to choose your own doctors for a while before you start calling me a pinkocommiesocialist.
carnot| 2.2.11 @ 5:08AM
yea...because everyone knows the system is structured such that the supply of doctors far exceeds the demand for their services. just dial up whomever you want! need that specialist for a spinal fusion...why Adam is there to make sure you get who ya want! cuz a single payer system by its very existence guarantees it!
FREE tea| 2.3.11 @ 12:47AM
---AND THEN ONTO the illegal, unconstitutional,
criminal FED, its fractional reserve games and empty, debt-serfing fiat currency and Globalist
intrigues.
THEN ONTO the Freemasonic, frankly Luciferian
(TRUE!) capstone, Globalist (i.e. cultural liquidators)
ultra-rich, TAX FREE 'charitable' foundations
BOTH here and in London ---
with unflinching, comprehensive and 'warm' prosecution' for almost a century
of New World Order and eugenics 'antics'.
----WHY, even as our entire Christian establishment has been destroyed via decades
of Arminian heresy (doctrine of 'works' and
'moral relativism') stealthily advanced by the
ever creepy, Rockefeller founded and funded
'World Council of Churches' ---we might begin
by bringing in the 'Seperation of Church and State'
issue ----just for a little foot in the door.
-----CAN'T WAIT!
Timely Renewed | 2.4.11 @ 1:50AM
Judge Vinson's decision is good news, and we all hope that it will prevail when Obamacare finally reaches the Supreme Court two years from now. However, that is not certain, and there remain substantial political powers who regard this vast extension of federal power as constitutional based upon the Supreme Court's vast expansion of the interstate commerce clause since 1937. The only sure way to stop not only Obamacare, but the innumerable other ways in which the federal government has increased its power beyond the original scope of the Constitution, is to reverse those Supreme Court cases and restore the interstate commerce clause to its original meaning. Given how entrenched these Supreme Court precedents are, this will require a constitutional amendment restating the original, very limited scope of the interstate commerce clause. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 5:34AM
This answer was obviously not very convincing to the Judge. On Monday, Vinson found in favor of Florida and the twenty-five other states that have joined its lawsuit, ruling that the so-called individual mandate is unconstitutional. Moreover, he went further than U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, who recently ruled against the Obama administration in a similar case filed by the Commonwealth of Virginia
Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 4:18AM
is good
العاب بنات | 4.11.12 @ 4:12PM
I just hope Mr. Vinson stays away from blue-dog congress people. Who knows how many unhinged leftist may be in the waiting...They can knock him off along with others and claim some government hating tea-bagger was after the blue-dog congress critter. That would automatically make it Ms. Palin's fault!