Judge rules Obama health care law unconstitutional

[Dave]

Thankfully at least some judges can see what is so obvious, that the health care law as it stands is overreaching and just not a good law. If the party that had been in control of congress had tried to actually make the health care law an actual bipartisan piece of law then things might not of got to the point they are at now. Sure, the democrats threw in some republican suggestions but the image of the locked doors and statements about having to wait til the law was passed before we could see what was in it will haunt the democrats at least through the next presidential election cycle.

 

 

WASHINGTON — A federal judge's ruling Monday that the health care law that passed last year is unconstitutional leaves implementation exactly where it was: moving forward.

And, according to senior administration officials, that will continue unless Congress votes to repeal the law or the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional.

"We don't believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld, and we are confident that the (law) will ultimately be declared constitutional by the courts," Stephanie Cutter, deputy senior adviser to President Obama, wrote on the White House blog.

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson in Florida ruled the entire law unconstitutional, but he declined to block the law while administration officials appeal the decision.

Monday's decision was the fourth ruling from a federal trial judge on the mandate that individuals purchase insurance if not covered. Two judges have ruled it unconstitutional; two have upheld it.

• TIMELINE: Road to health care legislation

Vinson went further than the earlier decision against the law — in December from Richmond-based U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson— by declaring that the invalidated individual-mandate provision could not be separated from the rest of the health care overhaul and doomed it entirely.

In a 78-page, sweeping decision, Vinson rejected administration arguments that the law was grounded in Congress' power to regulate commerce because, he said, the law is not aimed at "economic activity," but rather "inactivity," that is, a decision not to purchase insurance.

So far, only trial court judges have considered the constitutionality of the law. The Richmond-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit is scheduled to hear the dispute in May. The 6th Circuit is reviewing a related appeal from a ruling in a Michigan case.

The law's validity would ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Republican-led House of Representatives has voted to repeal the law, but the Senate, where Democrats hold a slim majority, has not taken action on the repeal bill. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans say they intend to work for a vote on the House repeal bill.

"This ruling confirms what Americans have been saying for months: The health spending bill is a massive overreach, and Democrats 'exceeded the bounds' of Congressional authority," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the government should continue offering insurance to people with pre-existing medical conditions and allowing parents to keep their adult children on their insurance plans.

"Health care reform is the law of the land, and, now that Americans see its benefits, a majority of them oppose Republicans' dangerous plans to repeal a law that put patients in control of their own health care," he said in a statement.

Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business — one of the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit in Florida — said the ruling should be a call for Congress to "take a deep breath" and wait for the four cases to play out in court before making any decision for further implementation.

"Health care reform is the law of the land and, now that Americans see its benefits, a majority of them oppose Republicans' dangerous plans to repeal a law that put patients in control of their own health care," he said in a statement.

Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business — one of the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit in Florida — said the ruling should be a call for Congress to "take a deep breath" and wait for the four cases to play out in court before making any decision for further implementation.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-02-01-healthcare01_ST_...

[Dave]

Oh yeah, one more thing... i've said it before and will say it again, I dislike when one party has total control of congress... sooner or later their egos get to big and they start trying to run things through, regardless of if their constituents want the legislation or not. Both the republicans and the democrats have demonstrated the problem with total control, most recently the democrats of course and the republicans just prior.

[masonco]

YUP...But at least you won't get in trouble for saying that here.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

You know Dave? I used to take issue with your view of neither party should have total control of congress. But in light of just going back and looking at the congressional activity for the last decade even you can make a very good case of neither party working the peoples will when the (own) both houses. 

I think the Republicans as well as the Dems used total control to ( crush) free Debate on issues. I think if the Dems were not so worried about getting an all or nothing situation with their ideas of health care reform we would not be re-visiting the issue basically for the next two years.

Time will tell if it is a winner for Republicans to chew over the bill for the next two years, and then think the people will still want them in power when the real concern should be limiting the obstacles in the way of Businesses hiring. I mean you can argue that repealing the bill may save or create jobs, but is not this the same place a few months ago, I questioned ,how do you conclusively prove a negative?

Besides.. it looks like the court system is going to break in the way of a massive over reach of government anyway so let them be the bad guys?

[XLFD]

Dave and Guido make excellent points and are completely right, from my perspective.  One of the worst ways to infringe on the rights of the people are to make more laws.  Though Democrats traditionally create more restraint on liberties througn their laws, there are plenty of Republican laws that have done the same. 

A divided house guarantees that any laws passed will have significant non-partisan support and debate.  Even if you totally despise what the other party stands for, the last non-divided sessions of congress have shown us all the faults of one-party rule:  poor laws passed, no legitimate debate, and corruption. 

Those who wish for more government power (statists) should be happy whenever there is one-party rule in Congress.  Those who want less should hope for a split.

[masonco]

I wish our government had 3 equal MAJOR parties so there would NEVER be one party in majority.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

The only problem with that idea three parties or more is like in Germany, You then have to try to form a coalition to get anything accomplished. And some of those parties over there ?? Make real odd bedfellows.

[AQUAMAN]

Sorry Dave, while I agree the Judge did the right thing, it wasn't cause it didn't feel good or look good, simply put, it's unconstitutional, period. After a lifetime of over 50 years of looking at the Dems. and Reps. go back and forth, with so much repeated ignorance, bickering, corruption, and condescension for the people's real wants and needs, I think Masonco's idea would be a winner, given a chance, and given a fair playing field without special interest group monies paving the ways. A major player that will truly be from the grass roots, with term limits, and with no partisan favorites. Simply put, more along the line of the Tea Party groups, that want fiscal and moral responsibility, with growth and prosperity all around, and way less taxation. Less interference, payoffs, and meddling overseas, and protect our own people with new border protection, and more tariffs to help America get back the jobs we so desperately need, and have to keep for any secure future to be possible.

[masonco]

Eliminate lobbyists, earmark possibilities and MAYBE something would get done. Oh did I say eliminate privileges for those who "donate".

 

Simplify IRS forms. EVERYONE pays 20% of income if they earn less than 25K annually. Do you realize the increase in revenue if the "rich" and congress reps paid 20% of their income for taxes?

 

While at it (I know I'm suffering from overdose of exposure to that white stuff I found on the ground this morning). Anyway just add an extra 5% tax to all who make more than 90K a year and use that money to pay social security and medicare..

 

See how easy to solve our deficit?  Oh wait I think I'm running a fever or is it chills?

[Dave]

Another odd thing with the health care law is how many unions are looking to opt out of it.... if you look at the list that is available, nearly 40% of those that have been given the exemption are unions... and of course SEIU who supported Obama in his election and also supported the health care bill. Kind of odd isn't it that they would want to opt out after supporting the bill. Seems to be that its ok for you to have to deal with it, its not ok for them even though they wanted it.

[masonco]

Isaid way back in LT that unions were endorsing it cause they were able to opt out by doing so.

 

AARP endorsed it cause all medicare was supposed to be through their insurance company.

[Edie Lindsey]

Do you have a link to those opt out lists Dave?  I have restricted webtime to look myself.  That sounds about par for unions nowadays.  

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Here is a link to HHS website for your opt out lists... Keep in mind this list is growing almost daily.

 

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiv...