The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

The three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the individual mandate in its first ruling on the national health care legislation President Obama signed into law.

“Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act’s larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance,” Judge Boyce F. Martin, appointed by former President Jimmy Carter, wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling, the Associated Press reported. A George W. Bush appointee voted with him and a Ronald Reagan appointee dissesnted.

An appeal is expected. This will go on either to the full appeals court or the Supreme Court.

View all comments (16) |

Big Jim| 6.29.11 @ 2:19PM

Having a rational basis does not confer constitutional authority to congress to force people to buy any product or service.

Louis Tully| 6.29.11 @ 2:55PM

"rational basis", and similar bullsh*t Constitutional tests appear nowhere in the document, of course.

"rational basis" = sounds good to us.

illogical| 6.29.11 @ 11:51PM

It would be very helpful to the readers here to right away identify what is meant by the ____th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. I will openly admit my lack of knowledge here.

I mean, it sounds official and all, but where is this court (where physicaly located) and why does its deliberations and rulings have any bearing on my life?

How many of these Circuit Courts of Appeals do we have? Why so many? Why in different locations? Do certain courts have jurisdiction over certain kinds of casese they'll hear? As in, this Government Health Care decision is one for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals but not one the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals would ever hear.

And where is the next court that can overrule/overturn the 6th's decisions? The Supreme Court probably?

Last: Are these Circuit judges always appointed only by sitting presidents and are these judges' terms "for life?"

Seems like this all set up to dumbfound the consciencious citizen.

Al Adab| 6.29.11 @ 2:21PM

Whatever Courts may rule, this is the time for Civil disobedience of which The Left is so fand. In short the public. being asked to finance this debacle, must respond, "We will not comply."

CalMark| 6.29.11 @ 2:38PM

I will not comply.

I will go to jail if I have to.

It is better to be a persecuted dissident with values than a fearful slave without a soul.

CalMark| 6.29.11 @ 2:39PM

P.S. Where's the Constitutional and legal reasoning? This is nothing but rationalization of leftist legislative wonkery.

Pelligrino| 6.29.11 @ 11:39PM

CalMark and AA, I, too, will not comply.

Here we stand.

LC JB | 6.30.11 @ 2:33PM

I too, aim to misbehave.

Louis Tully| 6.29.11 @ 2:53PM

I'm sorry, but "Constitutional jurisprudence" is a fraking joke. Outcomes are purely political. The actual text of the document itself is meaningless in their hands.

We either have to end the practice of giving the Courts the last word, or limit their potential for mischief by limiting their terms.

OR,

we can all just get used to being serfs...

R Martin| 6.29.11 @ 3:38PM

Well said. Judges, of course, are nothing more than lawyers in black robes. They may consider themselves ingenious for having been elevated, but as they heap refinement upon refinement and subtlety upon subtlety until they construe away every common sense meaning and every sacred right under law they lose the respect of the public and become just another group of political hacks. And I mean judges (justices) at all levels.

pprados | 6.29.11 @ 3:58PM

Why 6th Circuit ruling upholding ind mandate is not a total disaster http://northernvirginialawyer......holds.html

LC JB | 6.30.11 @ 2:37PM

Thanks for the link. The author makes a very good point from a legal perspective.

David W| 6.29.11 @ 7:06PM

Isn't there a rational bias not to pay taxes? Isn't there a rational basis to want to keep what you earn and only voluntarily give it to those who are without? Isn't there a rational basis to want judges whose heads aren't up their ....

rendite| 6.29.11 @ 11:37PM

Any judge still alive from a Jimmy Carter appointment has to be rather aged AND senile, no? Do judges have to pass lucent-thinking/reasoning exams to remain on the bench?

Surely one can make the argument that a judge taking so many naps -- daily during the working day -- has probably missed valuable testimony, facts, support, discussion, etc. no?

jordan fusions | 6.30.11 @ 3:10AM

Nice post.Thank you for taking the time to publish this information very useful!

Mimi| 7.1.11 @ 12:38PM

What if there is massive and overwhelming non-compliance? Everyone and everywhere refuses to buy any Health Insurance? Watch the market forces take over and the cost of medical care dramatically decrease, so much so that Hospital only and catastropical Insurance , will be necessary alone!!

More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/29/first-6th-circuit-ruling-favor

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey | 5.23.13

Obama's Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.23.13

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer | 5.23.13

Lerner's Plea

Ray V. Hartwell | 5.23.13

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

ADVERTISEMENT