-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
This has been a busy week when it comes to legal challenges to the national health care law. On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the law’s requirement to purchase health insurance was unconstitional in a suit brought by Virgina. And on Thursday, another district court judge, Roger Vinson, heard oral arguments in a separate case against the individual mandate launched by Florida and 19 other states.
While a judge’s posture in oral arguments isn’t an ironclad indication of how he intends to vote, several news accounts of the hearing suggested Vinson — a Ronald Reagan appointee — was extremely skeptical of the Obama administration’s argument that the Commerce Clause gave the federal government the authority to regulate inactivity.
“It would be a giant leap for the Supreme Court to say that a decision to buy or not to buy is tantamount to activity,” Vinson said, according to the Wall Street Journal. The judge noted that when he was in law school he was uninsured when his first son was born and paid out of pocket.
Vinson called the mandate a “giant expansion” of federal regulatory power, the New York Times reported, saying, “People have always exercised the freedom to choose whether to buy or not buy a commercial product.”
There was even some suggestion that Vinson could go a step further in his ruling than the decision earlier this week. Hudson rejected Virginia’s call to strike down the entire health care law if the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, but according to both accounts, Vinson seemed more sympathetic to striking down the whole law, arguing that its elements were interconnected, like a clock that stops working if one part isn’t functioning properly. “It’s also been compared to a Rube Goldberg invention,” the Times quoted him as saying.
For opponents of ObamaCare, clearly the more rulings against the mandate — and the more chances to win at the appellate level — the better.
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/17/another-judge-seems-poised-to
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
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
Sharon Tomal| 12.17.10 @ 8:02PM
Finally, some judges who really get it. I'm talking about the Constitution. I wish the government would stay the HELL out of my private decisions. I thought this was spelled out in Roe v Wade. That 1973 decision was made law due to privacy issues, but this "awful" mandate has not just the privacy issue to contend with, but the force by Obama and others of his ilk to ensure we buy any product/service they think is good. Just STOP IT OBAMA, JUST STOP IT!!!
joanne| 12.17.10 @ 9:42PM
The c4rusing of the omnibus bill was fantastic!!With this crazy 111th. congress, I feel like my head is going to blow up everyday. Harry Reid just said tofday that it was his obligation to spend our money-PLEASE ,FOR GODS SAKE!!!I hope healthcare which was shoved down our throats is overturned or starved and that Obama,Pelosi and all his little czars disappear into the wall in 2012.
la| 12.17.10 @ 10:06PM
I agree with you Joanne. I hope more judges declare this law unconstitutional and it gets overturned!!!I hope this is defunded, repealed or overturned!! The gov't can just keep their nose out of my business and just leave me alone!!
DaveS| 12.17.10 @ 10:06PM
This law did not receive a single Republican vote. Aren't all the legislators sworn to uphold the Constitution? Start the disciplinary proceedings against the Dems in January. Impeach!
A first-year law student would get this one right.
juanreeyes| 12.18.10 @ 1:20AM
I have read somewhere on the news that something like "Wise Health Insurance" is offering lowest health insurance rate for low and middle income families so search online and find them.
Richard ahern | 12.18.10 @ 9:24AM
OBAMA CARE-Under Article 1 section 8 under the US CONSTITUTION GIVES NO AUTHORITY TO CONGRESS TO SPEND MONEY AND COMPETE WITH THE FREE MARKET. RULE OF LAW /NOT RULE OF MEN-CONTITUTIONAL LAW.OBAMA CARE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Susanna Gordon| 12.18.10 @ 10:27AM
Notice that healthcare costs did not rise significantly until the 1970s when the government began to get involved in the health industry with medicare, medicaid, medical, and all the other welfare/entitlement medical programs. In California health care for illegals costs 12.5 billion a year.
Susanna Gordon| 12.18.10 @ 10:27AM
Notice that healthcare costs did not rise significantly until the 1970s when the government began to get involved in the health industry with medicare, medicaid, medical, and all the other welfare/entitlement medical programs. In California health care for illegals costs 12.5 billion a year.
ThatJoeGuy| 12.18.10 @ 11:33AM
I also hope/can't wait unit this ObamaScare gets shot down.
But I think judges should look at bills brought before them like Congress does, all as one unit. If any part of a bill is deemed unconstitutional then the remainder of the bill goes down with it. This will force Congress to rework the bill without the offending part. Rather then make taxpayers/AG's pick the bill apart costing ten times what it should to get this cleared up.
Just my thoughts.
don| 12.18.10 @ 6:34PM
The privacy issue and the right to choose (an abortion)? If the commerce clause can be construed to include "inactivity" as a basic economic choice with interstate commerce consequences, then certainly Roe V Wade is suspect, since refusing to make babies, future producers and consumers, is equally an economic decision with interstate commerce consequences. Apparently we have a limited finite government with infinite powers.
johnsondude| 12.20.10 @ 2:32PM
Wrong Don. I'm on your side, but you're clearly not a lawyer. Yes, Obamacare (namely, the individual mandate) is unconstitutional. Obama's (DOJ's) position would require an extremely broad reading of the Commerce Clause and would effectively render Congress' regulatory power unlimited. However, there is not, as you suggest, any inconsistency between (1) supporting an individual mandate and (2) supporting Roe v. Wade. Roe invalidated state laws that purport to criminalize abortion, relying on a broad reading of the Bill of Rights (i.e. right to privacy). In other words, the Supreme Court said states don't have the power to restrict abortion prior to viability (i.e. prior to the third trimester). Roe did not in any way restrict the federal government's power to do anything whatsoever. (The feds aren't in the business of criminalizing abortion. If Congress tried to pass a federal law outlawing/restricting abortion, you can bet your ass it would be struck down by the courts). Obamacare, on the other hand, is a federal mandate. That's where the commerce clause comes into play. The federal government must rely on some explicit constitutional grant of power (since the 10th amendment says that all powers not explicitly granted to the feds are reserved for the states/people). The commerce clause has nothing to do with Roe. You're talking out of your ass.
tgtg| 12.19.10 @ 10:24AM
This law has always been a stretch. It is the left taking a concept and hoping it will advance the cause of a socialistic takeover, not of Red States, not of Blue States but of the United states.
R. Kevin Hill| 12.20.10 @ 8:56AM
The individual mandate concept originated at the Heritage Foundation in 1992, where it was considered a "market-based" solution because of its reliance on private insurers, and a conservative solution because it required that people take personal responsibility and not "cash in" by buying insurance only after they were sick. Don't believe me? Read this libertarian critique from 1992, at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa184.pdf . But that can't be right, can it? Hasn't Oceania always been at war with Eastasia?
Rachelle Young| 12.19.10 @ 2:05PM
Thank God there are at least two honest judges on this case.
As for others, if judges want to be politicians it is time to treat them like politicians.
Maybe it is time to take a closer look at other federal judges who abandon their oath to uphold the Constitution. They hold office during 'good behavior' but isn't it 'bad behavior', impeachable behavior, to substitute one's own agenda for the law? I would like to see impeachment at least considered for the judge who shot down Arizona's immigration law, and the judge who shot down the voters of California who voted against gay marriage, and impeachment for the two judges who ruled Obamacare constitutional.
Again, if judges want to be politicians it is time to treat them like politicians.