Judge Slaps Obamacare.

[Revoltingest]

A brief episode of sanity & constitutional literacy in our courts.....

Obama officials warn of 'devasting consequences' if mandate struck down - The Hill's Healthwatch

 

[Mister_T]

It's funny how when a number of other judges declare healthcare reform as constitutional and hold up gay marriage rulings as being constitutional. declaring "Don't ask, Don't tell" as being unconstitutional, etc., conservatives belly ache and moan about those pesky "liberal" judges. Yet the one time a judges rules in their favor judges are great and "constituionally literate!"

 

[Revoltingest]

It's funny how when a number of other judges declare healthcare reform as constitutional and hold up gay marriage rulings as being constitutional. declaring "Don't ask, Don't tell" as being unconstitutional, etc., conservatives belly ache and moan about those pesky "liberal" judges. Yet the one time a judges rules in their favor judges are great and "constituionally literate!"

Don't bark at me....I favor gay marriage, gay military service & Broadway show tunes.
But I find the compulsory health care plan to be constitutionally outside of the federal gov't's power.
Worry not...the USSC will rule based upon poplular opinion, so it will very likely pass muster.
I gotta enjoy it while I can....my chortling will be short lived.

 

[Requia]

Yes, devastating consequences, like the insurance industry not getting as big of profits.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am VERY glad the health care bill passed. Myself, my girlfriend, and several of my friends are getting health insurance again through their parents in 17 days. And I think the first thing I'm going to do is schedule a dentist appointment because I haven't been to one in about three years. I bet after a few years people wont even remember what they were upset or afraid about.

 

[gnomon]

I agree with Revoltingest.

The argument the government was taking on the health care issue was the same argument used to completely broaden the interstate commerce clause that was used in the Raich v. Gonzales (aka Raich v. Ashcroft) case as well as the notorious Wickard v. Filburn case.

Sadly, many people who actually know about those earlier cases, opposed the reasoning behind the SCOTUS decision in both those cases will vilify any judge that rules against this argument the Justice Department puts forth now because........when it comes to politics in America the ends justify the means.

Partisan group think at it's finest.

I would say it's exactly as Mister T states except that regarding the history of Wickard and the recent Raich case it was the Libertarians crying foul over the decision while both the major parties sat aside and did basically nothing. Then again, it's those two parties who share power so any SCOTUS decision that opens up more power for Congress will not be challenged by those parties. Sure conservatives belly ache now but in my opinion it's another show. Just like their show in the Kelo decision.

So while judicial districts justify expanding power, such as allowing law enforcement to use SWAT teams to raid businesses without warrants but using a regulatory agency instead........nothing makes sense any more.

 

[Revoltingest]

The argument the government was taking on the health care issue was the same argument used to completely broaden the interstate commerce clause that was used in the Raich v. Gonzales (aka Raich v. Ashcroft) case as well as the notorious Wickard v. Filburn case.

Such interesting cases deserve links:
Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.....when it comes to politics in America the ends justify the means.

I like a nation of rules. When we don't like them, we can legally change them.
It beats giving gov't the power to ignore them at their convenience.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I understand the court only struck down (for the moment) the provision which penalizes people for not having health insurance. The rest of the bill was upheld.

If a public insurance option had been provided, I wonder if the requirement would still be struck down? In that case I think the insurance mandate would not have been ruled unconstitutional, since this would be just like paying taxes for any public service, except you can opt-out and get a private version if you choose.

 

[Revoltingest]

I understand the court only struck down (for the moment) the provision which penalizes people for not having health insurance. The rest of the bill was upheld.

That seems strange, since the bill lacked provision for severability (so the article below says). In contract law,
severability clauses are essential, lest the entire contract be possibly ruled unenforceable for a problem in one area.
Review & Outlook: ObamaCare Loses in Court - WSJ.com

If a public insurance option had been provided, I wonder if the requirement would still be struck down? In that case I think the insurance mandate would not have been ruled unconstitutional, since this would be just like paying taxes for any public service, except you can opt-out and get a private version if you choose.

Not that I approve of it, but a tax & service approach should survive USSC scrutiny.

 

[Mister_T]

Don't bark at me....I favor gay marriage, gay military service & Broadway show tunes.
But I find the compulsory health care plan to be constitutionally outside of the federal gov't's power.
Worry not...the USSC will rule based upon poplular opinion, so it will very likely pass muster.
I gotta enjoy it while I can....my chortling will be short lived.

I wasn't barking at you per se, rather the general opinion of a lot of conservatives (don't believe, me, read the comments below any news article on such stories). However, your use of the term "constitutional literacy" seems to be rather one-sided.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That seems strange, since the bill lacked provision for severability (so the article below says). In contract law,
severability clauses are essential, lest the entire contract be rendered unenforceable by a problem in one area.
Review & Outlook: ObamaCare Loses in Court - WSJ.com

That is interesting, but OTOH legislation is different from a contract and it's not clear to me that the default assumption, without a severability clause, is that an entire piece of legislation is nullified if a single provision is nullified. But I don't know ...

(On a side note, most of what is found on the opinion pages of the WSJ cannot be taken seriously, i.m.h.o., and I say this as an on-and-off subscriber who appreciates the news sections.)

 

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't barking at you per se, rather the general opinion of a lot of conservatives (don't believe, me, read the comments below any news article on such stories). However, your use of the term "constitutional literacy" seems to be rather one-sided.

I was having some provocative fun.

(On a side note, most of what is found on the opinion pages of the WSJ cannot be taken seriously, i.m.h.o., and I say this as an on-and-off subscriber who appreciates the news sections.)

Wise you are to not trust'm too much.

 

[Requia]

I am VERY glad the health care bill passed. Myself, my girlfriend, and several of my friends are getting health insurance again through their parents in 17 days. And I think the first thing I'm going to do is schedule a dentist appointment because I haven't been to one in about three years. I bet after a few years people wont even remember what they were upset or afraid about.

This ruling doesn't effect any of that, it only effects the mandate that you have healthcare.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Woohoo, the personal mandate got shot down! Just think, if this goes through, everyone who has health insurance will get higher premiums! It'll hurt the quality of life for America as a whole, most likely at the expense of the middle class! Excellent move, judge!

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know what effect it'll have.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't know what effect it'll have.

It will become even more evident that Angellous is your daddy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I see both sides to the mandatory thing. On one hand we have personal choice which is most desirable. But on the other hand the expenses of no health insurance get passed around. Much like how an uninsured driver can put others in the position of having to eat any financial losses because the uninsured driver can't afford to pay out of pocket.
And come to think about it I can't recall much of a voice for repealing mandatory auto insurance. But of course we all know that it's a bad idea to not have auto insurance because if you are in a wreck and don't have it you are screwed, along with the owner of the other car who will have to pay for repairs out of pocket because you probably won't be able to get them paid soon enough. Although I do think they need to do away with the law that automatically places fault on uninsured drivers.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It will become even more evident that Angellous is your daddy.

That's impossible.

 

[Requia]

Woohoo, the personal mandate got shot down! Just think, if this goes through, everyone who has health insurance will get higher premiums! It'll hurt the quality of life for America as a whole, most likely at the expense of the rich! Excellent move, judge!

I fail to see any reason for premiums to go up as a result of this. Insurance companies aren't going to charge less money just because they have more customers, they'll charge the highest price they can without driving people to a competitor regardless of a mandate.

If anything this might make low end insurance plans a bit cheaper, since they'll still need to go after people with no insurance, and dropping prices a bit might get them more customers.

 

[Amill]

Figures they try water it down from a single payer system(which mandating pay shouldn't have been any different than taxes for police?) to still letting insurance companies play along, and then then it gets ruled unconstitutional. I still thought it'd be ok since they don't actually force them to pay for the commercial goods, just ask them to then pay a hefty tax if they don't?

I personally don't like the idea of forcing people to pay for health insurance(except maybe for children), but how can we get health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions if everyone isn't on board?