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_...

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

And yeah... There are an awe full lot of unions listed in the approved piles here that I read anyhow.

[masonco]

Congress people and their families can opt out too if I understand correctly and I read somewhere all government employees could opt out if they wish.

[Dave]

Here's an opinion piece from the USA Today website. Some good points are made as far as the law side of the legislation.

Our Ford Pinto health care law takes a hit

After this week's decision striking down the entire federal health care law as unconstitutional, the White House went into a full convulsive rage at Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida.

Borrowing an attack that has more often been heard from Republican administrations, Stephanie Cutter, a senior adviser to President Obama, issued a statement denouncing Vinson as a "judicial activist." That charge was quickly picked up by Democratic lawmakers. The evidence cited for this charge was the fact that Vinson "declared that the entire law is null and void even though the only provision he found unconstitutional was the (individual mandate) provision," which requires every citizen to buy health insurance.

What the White House does not mention is that it played a game of chicken over health care with the court and lost a critical battle in Florida. Instead of inserting a "severability clause" designed to protect an act from this type of global rejection, the legislation was rammed through a divided Congress with diminishing public support.

The absence of the clause was just one of the flaws in this legislation, which even sponsors now admit must be amended to address serious problems ranging from paperwork overload to uncertain costs to questions over what plans will count under the law. Even for some of us who support national health care, the bill unnecessarily triggered the constitutional fight that led to its rejection in two federal courts. There were alternatives to achieve the same end, but what was lacking was a willingness to reconsider these provisions with the approach of the new Congress.

A standard feature

Yet the failure of lawmakers to insert a boilerplate severability clause is the most puzzling. The standard clause — pardon the legalese — states, "If any particular provision of this act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the act and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby." It is generally on a short list of basic elements for legislation, such as putting a title and preamble on a bill.

The national health care bill contained such a provision, but it was removed before passage. Of course, even without such a clause, judges can still avoid striking down an entire law and confine their rulings to a specific provision. That is what Judge Henry Hudson did last year in Virginia after finding the individual mandate unconstitutional. Hudson was right to do so, in my view, but that does not make Vinson a judicial activist.

The charge of activism sounds like the lament of every bad gambler after being discouraged from playing a high-risk hand.

The risk was always there

Many — including yours truly — had raised concerns over the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Even the respected Congressional Research Service noted that such objections might have merit. Ultimately, public officials in 26 states have challenged the law.

Even if one accepts that the removal of the clause was just some colossal, inexplicable blunder, it was the blunder of the White House and Congress — not the courts. The result was a Ford Pinto law — a fast and cheap vehicle that would explode with even low-speed collisions.

The Justice Department undermined its own case by repeatedly warning Vinson in court that if he struck down the individual mandate, the law would be fundamentally crippled. Without the mandate (and young healthy people forced to buy insurance), the plan is fatally underfunded. It appeared to the court that the administration was arguing that it was an "all-or-nothing" proposition. Vinson's ruling: Nothing it is.

Of course, the law could be ultimately saved by the U.S. Supreme Court, where it is clearly heading. In the end, however, it seems a bit forced for the Obama administration to throw around the old cry of "judicial activism" when it pushed through a law that removed the critical safety provision for severability.

The problem with games of chicken is that sometimes the other guy does not jump before the cliff.

Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.

[AQUAMAN]

Thanks Dave, interesting, and quite revealing about the inexplicable blunder of the lacking severability clause. And as you and Masonco so clearly pointed out, both all the unions and Federal employees may opt out of this, so clearly this tells us that it's good enough for all the rest of us, but of course, not they themselves. Is this not Hypocrisy at it's finest! I don't see where the Supreme Court can possibly overturn this now, or why they would be forced to even entertain a revisit to this case.

[masonco]

Look at Obama's chosen member who was just appointed to the Supreme court