The Unconstutionality of Healthcare Reform

[Howey]

Funny. I'm surprised Jefferson, et al, weren't mentioned. 

Another court victory!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110131/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul

Fla. judge strikes down Obama health care overhaul


PENSACOLA, Fla. – A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care overhaul unconstitutional Monday, siding with 26 states that argued people cannot be required to buy health insurance.

Senior U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson agreed with the states that the new law violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties. He went a step further than a previous ruling against the law, declaring the entire thing unconstitutional if the insurance requirement does not hold up.



At this rate, we may get rid of this law without having a Republican President.

Sure. He was called a conservative judge. Big deal. He also made some not so veiled references to his Teabagger heritage, IYKWIM...

"It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place."

I'm surprised he took the time out of hobnobbing with the Koch Bros. and all those conservative SCOTUS at their secret little get-together in California to come up with this ruling. Maybe Mr. Rove wrote it for him and all it needed was his signature.

[Howey]

Looks like our judge is quite the bigot!

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/01/31/vinson-frc/

But a closer read of his analysis reveals something peculiar. In fact, as Vinson himself admits in Footnote 27 (on pg. 65), he arrived at this conclusion by “borrow[ing] heavily from one of the amicus briefs filed in the case for it quite cogently and effectively sets forth the applicable standard and governing analysis of severability (doc. 123).” That brief was filed by the Family Research Council, which has been branded as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

“The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as ‘the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,’ but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians,” SPLC says. Indeed, so-called FRC “experts” (who most recently lobbied to preserve Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) have argued that “gaining access to children” “has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement” and claimed that “

• ne of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets of a new sexual order.” FRC President Tony Perkins has even described pedophilia as a “homosexual problem.”

[lil mike]

I was watching Lawrence O'Donnell tonight and he had a couple of guests on that said the judge was in his rights to throw out the whole bill because of the lack of the severability clause, which apparently is boilerplate for these type of bills.  So the Senate fucked up.  Thanks senate!

[ekg]

Looks like our judge is quite the bigot!

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/01/31/vinson-frc/

But a closer read of his analysis reveals something peculiar. In fact, as Vinson himself admits in Footnote 27 (on pg. 65), he arrived at this conclusion by “borrow[ing] heavily from one of the amicus briefs filed in the case for it quite cogently and effectively sets forth the applicable standard and governing analysis of severability (doc. 123).” That brief was filed by the Family Research Council, which has been branded as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

“The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as ‘the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,’ but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians,” SPLC says. Indeed, so-called FRC “experts” (who most recently lobbied to preserve Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) have argued that “gaining access to children” “has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement” and claimed that “

• ne of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets of a new sexual order.” FRC President Tony Perkins has even described pedophilia as a “homosexual problem.”

I liked his shout out to the tea party...

if it wasn't for 'activist' judges, the GOP wouldn't have any judges at all would they? Funny how they don't seem to mind those activist right now..


it's messed up that even in our courts this comes down to what your political upbringing is.. 2 dem judges allowed it, 2 rep judges denied it... looks like it's going to the supreme court and that will split 4/4 with Kennedy being the swing vote.

MSNBC made a great point last night.. 60 some-odd million voters,150+ house of reps members,60 senators all democratically voted this into law and it still comes down to one man who wasn't elected..

and yet we want to tell every else to become a 'democracy'..  yeah sure.

I love how some people would have this gov't force a woman or little girl to carry the offspring of the man who raped her.. be it her father,brother,uncle.. or stranger.. but can't stand to have the gov't make people pay their own way in life.. it is a bizarre-o world indeed when the GOP is for free-gov't tit-sucking welfare..

there are 2 more great ironies here..

one, the mandate was never part of the original plan. the dems were against it. (even this judge noted Obama's wavering of it, which is odd in itself, what does a candidate's campaign rhetoric have to do with any legal decision, but thanks for the precedent mr.activist judge, I'm sure that will come in handy in the future).. anyway,  the mandate was added in because it's GOP idea, and was a way to get GOP support. There is no getting something for nothing, no 'welfare queen' sucking off the system, Romney did it, Dole asked for it, it's a creation of the other side and was given to them as a peace offering (like there is any compromise with the fundamentalist GOP'er).. and yet, it could be it's undoing.. how ironic


the other is.. if just this part(the mandate) is stricken then we'll undoubtedly get that 'public option'..  with no one being made to buy insurance AND still having to cover pre-existing conditions.. insurance companies will go bankrupt because everyone will just drop their coverage until they are sick.. and they(insurance companies) won't have the money to cover them(the sick). So when they go belly up, that will force the gov't to come in a cover the costs..

whoo hoo.. point scored for Obama-medicare-for-all.. Thanks GOP!

and I'll add moo here. I'd kinda like to see the days and weeks after the supreme's renounce this law as unconstitutional.. image that meltdown.. kids being booted off parents plan,cancer babies being booted off because they had that cancer in the womb and that's preexisting as you know, all pre-existing patients being kicked off, business' canceling plans because no more tax credit,premiums rising overnight  and every single person who in any way benefited from the law being billed for the coverage that they had that poor,defenseless insurance company paid for "unconstitutionally'..

ahhh yes.. talk about getting medicare-for-all in about a minute.... and this could happen during the 2012 campaign season.. HA! Both sides would have to deal with that issue and both would 'out medicare-for-all' each other.. if this was from the GOP I'd say it was a great plan.. but since it's from the Dems and they couldn't 'plan' their way out of a paper bag.. I'll just say the GOP should remember that sometimes they get just exactly what they ask for but most times you're not always happy with what you got. ..

[Howey]

it's messed up that even in our courts this comes down to what your political upbringing is..

I was watching Lawrence O'Donnell tonight and he had a couple of guests on that said the judge was in his rights to throw out the whole bill because of the lack of the severability clause, which apparently is boilerplate for these type of bills.  So the Senate fucked up.  Thanks senate!

Seems like lilMike's hero Reagan's Soliciter General has chided in too...

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/02/fried-aca/

I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional. … My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution, and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress’ Commerce power, “what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That is—to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed.” To my mind, that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the mandate.

[lil mike]

it's messed up that even in our courts this comes down to what your political upbringing is..

I was watching Lawrence O'Donnell tonight and he had a couple of guests on that said the judge was in his rights to throw out the whole bill because of the lack of the severability clause, which apparently is boilerplate for these type of bills.  So the Senate fucked up.  Thanks senate!

Seems like lilMike's hero Reagan's Soliciter General has chided in too...

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/02/fried-aca/

I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional. … My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution, and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress’ Commerce power, “what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That is—to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed.” To my mind, that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the mandate.

So you consider the commerce clause as unlimited?  I mean, is there anything it cant do?

Would the federal government requiring everyone to buy a GM car be constitutional?

[Howey]

So you consider the commerce clause as unlimited?  I mean, is there anything it cant do?

Would the federal government requiring everyone to buy a GM car be constitutional?

I have no opinion at all...I'm just posting what others (especially those who should be siding with him) say in disputing the stupidity of Judge Vinson. His own words in this case are discrediting him. I wonder if he shows up to court in a three-cornered hat and a "Don't Tread on Me" flag (both, of course, furnished by Ginny Thomas)?

[lil mike]

So you consider the commerce clause as unlimited?  I mean, is there anything it cant do?

Would the federal government requiring everyone to buy a GM car be constitutional?

I have no opinion at all...I'm just posting what others (especially those who should be siding with him) say in disputing the stupidity of Judge Vinson. His own words in this case are discrediting him. I wonder if he shows up to court in a three-cornered hat and a "Don't Tread on Me" flag (both, of course, furnished by Ginny Thomas)?

Hmm... you have no opinion at all?  I think this is code for, "I don't even understand the legal issue being discussed."  How can you criticize the Judge's decision if you don't have an opinion on it?  You really do need to lean on those talking points.  It looks like you would be lost without them.

[Howey]

Hmm... you have no opinion at all?  I think this is code for, "I don't even understand the legal issue being discussed."  How can you criticize the Judge's decision if you don't have an opinion on it?  You really do need to lean on those talking points.  It looks like you would be lost without them.

Maybe I misstated that. My opinion is that there are far more intelligent and less agenda-driven judges out there with a greater knowledge of the Commerce Act than you, me, or Judge Don't Tread on Me Vinson.

Not just democrat, republican too. If anything, my opinion (see?) is that Vinson shot himself and the repeal health care reform by saying it's unconstitutional in the foot with his stupidity.

btw...have you visited the Damn Socialists thread? Interesting...I believe it's in the BizarroAmerika2011 board...

[Howey]

Oh. Look! Are you going to post this on the muche, Mikie?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/obama-health-care-legal-victory_n_818428.html?fbwall

The Obama administration won a victory Thursday in the winding legal debate surrounding the president's signature health care law, as a federal judge in Mississippi threw out a suit challenging the constitutionality of the bill.

The judge, Keith Starret, who serves on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, ruled that plaintiffs suing over the coming implementation of the individual mandate did not demonstrate sufficient standing for him to take the case. He "granted in part" the administrations motion to dismiss the case, but gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint.

"The Court finds that the allegations of Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition, as stated therein, are insufficient to show that they have standing to challenge the minimum essential coverage provision of the PPACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]. Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition without prejudice."

The ruling is welcome news for the president, who earlier this week suffered a legal setback when a federal judge in Florida called the individual mandate unconstitutional and ruled that as such, the entire health care law was void.

[ekg]

oy vey... looks like that judge who ruled the law 'unconstitutional' gets alot of things wrong.. history for one, laws for the other... but he fulfilled his tea-party duty I guess..

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/03/vinson-40-errors/

 

   In the accompanying interactive examination of Vinson’s opinion, we show how he effectively writes an entire provision of the Constitution out of the document. How he butchers history, thumbs his nose at binding Supreme Court precedent, and relies on a constitutional theory that George Washington would find shocking. As we explain, even conservative legal scholars have questioned Vinson’s reasoning. And he wholly misunderstands health care and how it works.

    We also explain that one section of Vinson’s opinion was lifted from a brief filed by an organization that has been labeled a hate group. And when Vinson somehow concludes that the Boston Tea Party renders the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, we take apart that argument, too.

As an example of the kind of downright sloppy errors that are pervasive in Vinson’s opinion, the judge at one point in the opinion makes the implausible claim that “[t]t was not until 1887, one hundred years after ratification, that Congress first exercised its power to affirmatively and positively regulate commerce among the states.” This is a truly remarkable claim — and one that Vinson cites no authority to support — but it also took me exactly 10 minutes with LexisNexis to prove Vinson wrong:

    Vinson is wrong: George Washington signed a law regulating interstate commerce.

    The first Congress passed, and President Washington signed, “An act for registering and clearing vessels, regulating the coasting trade, and for other purposes,” which required the owners of U.S. ships to register their vessels and even contained special rules governing ships traveling from Baltimore to Philadelphia. [“An Act for Registering and Clearing Vessels, Regulating the Coasting Trade, and for other purposes,” Wikisource.”]

and hey, if a conservative judge can't use propaganda from a 'hate group' then what good are hate groups?

I mean forget about the liberals view of this.. Reagan's own people are saying this judge is flawed..http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/02/fried-aca/

 

   I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional. … My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution, and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress’ Commerce power, “what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That is—to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed.” To my mind, that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the mandate.

    The mandate is a rule—more accurately, “part of a system of rules by which commerce is to be governed,” to quote Chief Justice Marshall. And if that weren’t enough for you—though it is enough for me—you go back to Marshall in 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, where he said “the powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution. The government which has the right to do an act”—surely, to regulate health insurance—“and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means.” And that is the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...]

    I think that one thing about Judge Vinson’s opinion, where he said that if we strike down the mandate everything else goes, shows as well as anything could that the mandate is necessary to the accomplishment of the regulation of health insurance.

and he doesn't even like the law..

well like I said, it will go to the supremes.. and if they strike it and all of the people who have benefited from the law are canceled and billed for services... then we'll really see the fun start. I can't wait for  the GOP to bill all those seniors $250 for what they received 'unconstitutionally' from this law that helped them with the GOP-made donut-hole in the 1st place..but even that won't be as good as the deaths caused by the cancellation of benefits to those with pre-existing conditions...

pandora, meet the Republican party.. they would like to play with your box..

[Howey]

I don't get these ppl. They're intrinsically against the individual mandate, right?

So, what's the option? Why not propose one? Only the dems are proposing options. Like:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/democrats-explore-alternatives-to-health-insurance-mandate.php

One plan is modeled on an existing incentive built into the Medicare prescription drug benefit: Create an open-enrollment period for people who want to buy health insurance, and assess a penalty on anybody who tries to enter the insurance market after that window closes.

As Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) put it at a press conference Tuesday, "Take the word 'shall' out and say 'if you don't it's really gonna cost you a bundle.'"

There was once bipartisan support for this structure -- though there was also once bipartisan support for the mandate itself. The question is whether Republicans would be willing to play ball on fixing the law when their goal is to bring it down completely.

<<<<<<<yeah, there's that too. 

Or this:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/yet-another-dem-alternative-to-the-health-law-mandate-emerges.php

Rep. Peter Defazio (D-OR) proposes that people be allowed to opt out of the insurance mandate altogether -- but if they do, they will not be allowed to free-ride on the new health care system.

Under his plan, a person opting out "must file an 'affidavit of personal responsibility' with the state exchange. Such a filing will waive their rights to: 1) Enroll in a health insurance exchange; 2) Enroll in Medicaid if otherwise made eligible; and 3) Discharge health care related debt under Chapter 7 bankruptcy law," DeFazio wrote in a letter to colleagues Tuesday.

DeFazio's plan, btw, is the same used for Medicare Part B now...

So...where's the options? Ain't none. The pubs are so busy trying to undo all the good that's been done* they don't care about the deficit, jobs, Egypt, nuttin.

*Subjective. The health care reform that was passed isn't great, but it's progress. The majority of Americans prefer what was originally proposed...health care for all. What's there is a compromise.

[ekg]

Those are two great idea's..

the GOP didn't run on an idea.. they ran on only one thing, repeal.  They don't want to fix it, this is the last great 'class' for their people. Golf courses,military,diamonds,furs,real estate,yachts.. all of that can be attained by anyone.. but only a select few can still feel better than someone else because they have healthcare... oh sure, they deny it, but there really is no other reason to deny healthcare to people. They don't care about costs, just look at the wars and spending when the GOP is power. They don't care about people getting gov't subsidies, just look at Big Oil subsidies and the GOP/Tea party backing of Medicare/SS. They don't really care about people getting something for nothing, look at the anti-mandate position and big corps not paying a penny in taxes...

each and every objection they bring they are already doing somewhere else. 

This is about equality and most of this party doesn't like the idea that Juan and Shaquanda could be their healthcare equal.

this is the party of old white men.. and they already had to give up  their clubs,golf courses,government offices and boardrooms to the women and minorities... and they ain't going to let another woman(pelosi) and minority (obama) take this last bastion away from them....

tell me one good reason why we can't insure every child from conception until 18? the cost? HA! how much money did we lose in private war contracts to fraud and are still losing (and not demanding repayment?)

a drain on doctors? Bullshit.. more people getting health assessment create a larger need for doctors.. supply/demand..

no, the problem is Wentworth Daniel Ludwig  Ravington the 4th wouldn't be any better than Shaquadana Demonda Jones if they both had access to a doctor.

[Howey]

Wentworth

**sniff**

I miss him. 

[betteroffhere]

OH....i'm sorry...wrong door....excuse me...

then closes the door behind him................