The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Ballygrl on December 13, 2010, 12:18:15 PM
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576017552229615230.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEADNewsCollection
Judge Calls Health Law Unconstitutional
<snipped>
In a 42-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."
<snipped>
Article at the link.
-
I'm sure that Obama's team already has an appeal ready to go.
-
Obviously, a racist judge! (DU mode)
I find this a telling line from the judge: "At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance -- or crafting a scheme of universal health coverage -- it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."
:clap:
-
Finally. 'Bout damned time a Federal judge decided the Commerce Clause had a limit somewhere short of buying and selling living people (Come to think of it, some of them wouldn't even go that far, they'd just say the 13th Amendment precludes the possibility so it's a moot point).
-
Sorry, new to the forum and can't figure out how to post a youtube video and I can't edit that one :(
[youtube=425,350]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2FwncVrlqA[/youtube]
-
Finally. 'Bout damned time a Federal judge decided the Commerce Clause had a limit somewhere short of buying and selling living people (Come to think of it, some of them wouldn't even go that far, they'd just say the 13th Amendment precludes the possibility so it's a moot point).
Yeah, and interestingly the victory is on the "Rocket Docket", ensuring a somewhat accelerated trip to SCOTUS.
doc
-
Finally. Maybe more judges will be ruling the same. Let's hope so!
-
:) :-) :cheersmate:
Great news. I hope more judges rule this piece of crap to be unconstitutional.
-
Gotta question on this, maybe for DAT:
What happens when multiple federal judges make a ruling on individual cases with the same basic theme, i.e., Obamacare, and they, in essence, differ with each other? Does each case individually wind its way through the court system, appellate, etc., just to ultimately wind up - maybe - with SCOTUS?
Is each case reviewed on its own merits, then another judgment is pronounced relative to that case?
How can a lower-court judge determine the constitutionality of a given law - let's say Obamacare in this instance - vice another judge from another district?
Do pissing matches ensue between these guys (unseen to the rest of us mortals, of course)?
Okay, I guess it was more than one question..... :whistling:
-
This might help ya out a tad, Euph--the Florida case is for a different part of the Health Care Deform, according to RedState.
-
This might help ya out a tad, Euph--the Florida case is for a different part of the Health Care Deform, according to RedState.
Okay, that does help - but in the news of late, what we're hearing is Judge A rules that Obamacare is constitutional; Judge B rules that Obamacare is constitutional, but Judge C rules that Ocare is UNconstitutional. Granted, we're talking 3 different cases with 3 different sets of facts for each, but the bottom line seems to point toward the law is either upheld or it's shitcanned.
I'm trying to figure out who - besides SCOTUS - gets to sort through all this legal mumbo jumbo and get these guys singing off the same page....if that's even possible.
-
Gotta question on this, maybe for DAT:
What happens when multiple federal judges make a ruling on individual cases with the same basic theme, i.e., Obamacare, and they, in essence, differ with each other? Does each case individually wind its way through the court system, appellate, etc., just to ultimately wind up - maybe - with SCOTUS?
Is each case reviewed on its own merits, then another judgment is pronounced relative to that case?
How can a lower-court judge determine the constitutionality of a given law - let's say Obamacare in this instance - vice another judge from another district?
Do pissing matches ensue between these guys (unseen to the rest of us mortals, of course)?
Okay, I guess it was more than one question..... :whistling:
I'm certain that DAT will give you a more definitive answer, but it is my understanding that these cases will be appealed to their respective Circuits, and if eventually there are at least two Circuit Courts of Appeal that disagree in their final decision, the cases will be appealed to SCOTUS........it is one of the underlying duties of the Supreme Court to resolve issues between dissenting Circuits.
doc
-
Okay, that does help - but in the news of late, what we're hearing is Judge A rules that Obamacare is constitutional; Judge B rules that Obamacare is constitutional, but Judge C rules that Ocare is UNconstitutional. Granted, we're talking 3 different cases with 3 different sets of facts for each, but the bottom line seems to point toward the law is either upheld or it's shitcanned.
I'm trying to figure out who - besides SCOTUS - gets to sort through all this legal mumbo jumbo and get these guys singing off the same page....if that's even possible.
IMO, at some point in time in one of the lower courts, all of the cases that are being argued on the basis of the same portion of ObamaCare (in the same Circuit), will likely be combined. That said, a number of the lawsuits attack different portions of the law, and those will likely proceed intact.
doc
-
IMO, at some point in time in one of the lower courts, all of the cases that are being argued on the basis of the same portion of ObamaCare (in the same Circuit), will likely be combined. That said, a number of the lawsuits attack different portions of the law, and those will likely proceed intact.
doc
Thanks - makes sense.
I probably could've answered my own question by researching the Justice Department and see how all those different Circuits, Districts, whatever, break down. Homework assignment for tonight, I guess....
-
Gotta question on this, maybe for DAT:
What happens when multiple federal judges make a ruling on individual cases with the same basic theme, i.e., Obamacare, and they, in essence, differ with each other? Does each case individually wind its way through the court system, appellate, etc., just to ultimately wind up - maybe - with SCOTUS?
Is each case reviewed on its own merits, then another judgment is pronounced relative to that case?
How can a lower-court judge determine the constitutionality of a given law - let's say Obamacare in this instance - vice another judge from another district?
Do pissing matches ensue between these guys (unseen to the rest of us mortals, of course)?
Okay, I guess it was more than one question..... :whistling:
'Resolving a difference in the Circuits' is one of the classic jurisdictional provinces of the Supreme Court, though it does not HAVE to take the case, nor is it the exclusive way this question would get there. As far as there being a difference in the Circuits goes, though, there are a surprisingly wide number of situations where Federal agencies have to apply law one way in one State, and differently in another one, due to the States being in different Federal Circuits with different governing rulings on some fine point of evidence law, what exactly certain environmental law regulations mean, etc.
Basically, the cases start out in separate Circuits (And so necessarily different Districts, into which each Circuit is divided). In each Circuit, it begins with an initial decision by a District Judge; one or both parties willl be unhappy and appeal it, which ultimately generates a Circuit Court (Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, to be more precise) decision and opinion. When two different Circuits end up issuing conflicting opinions on the same point, it's a given that someone involved will try to get the Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari (Meaning that they accept the case for decision) to resolve the discrepancy. It is optional for the Court to accept these cases, it depends on how serious they think the effect would be.
I am not really following the litigation on these cases, and don't know if a fundamental conflict with the pro-HellCare decision has irrevocably been raised yet.
-
'Resolving a difference in the Circuits' is one of the classic jurisdictional provinces of the Supreme Court, though it does not HAVE to take the case, nor is it the exclusive way this question would get there. As far as there being a difference in the Circuits goes, though, there are a surprisingly wide number of situations where Federal agencies have to apply law one way in one State, and differently in another one, due to the States being in different Federal Circuits with different governing rulings on some fine point of evidence law, what exactly certain environmental law regulations mean, etc.
Basically, the cases start out in separate Circuits (And so necessarily different Districts, into which each Circuit is divided). In each Circuit, it begins with an initial decision by a District Judge; one or both parties willl be unhappy and appeal it, which ultimately generates a Circuit Court (Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, to be more precise) decision and opinion. When two different Circuits end up issuing conflicting opinions on the same point, it's a given that someone involved will try to get the Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari (Meaning that they accept the case for decision) to resolve the discrepancy. It is optional for the Court to accept these cases, it depends on how serious they think the effect would be.
I am not really following the litigation on these cases, and don't know if a fundamental conflict with the pro-HellCare decision has irrevocably been raised yet.
Both you and doc did a great job answering my questions. Thanks.
-
Gotta start somewhere.
-
THANK GOD.
I was so overjoyed when I read this last night on Yahoo :D It's not officially over, and I doubt it will ever be as long as there are enough morons or under-educated people to continue to support it.
-
THANK GOD.
I was so overjoyed when I read this last night on Yahoo :D It's not officially over, and I doubt it will ever be as long as there are enough morons or under-educated people to continue to support it.
Yeah Eric Holder, the red diaper doper baby, already has an appeal to the ruling.
I hope the Supreme Court shoot down this Hellcare.
-
Don't count on SCOTUS to do the right thing. We have only four justices who believe in the Constitution. Four others believe they should develop policy, regardless of the Constitution. And one who swings both ways, depending on his mood that day. Ginsburg and Breyer can be counted on to base their decisions on international law; and there's no doubt about Kagan: [youtube=425,350]<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DSoWGlyugTo&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DSoWGlyugTo&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>[/youtube]
-
(http://i35.tinypic.com/16huskn.jpg)
20 states ask judge to throw out Obama health law (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/16/20-states-ask-judge-throw-out-obama-health-law/)
PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) — Attorneys for 20 states fighting the new federal health care law told a judge Thursday it will expand the government's powers in dangerous and unintended ways.
The states want U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to issue a summary judgment throwing out the health care law without a full trial. They argue it violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.
"The act would leave more constitutional damage in its wake than any other statute in our history," David Rivkin, an attorney for the states, told Judge Vinson. >>>
The other states involved in the lawsuit are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
Leftists like Stinky and the Dungs in Congress remain willfully blind to the mountains of evidence demonstrating that government-run healthcare is guaranteed only to raise overall costs, increase the incidence of fraud, and lower the standard of care.
Why do they continue to support it? That’s simple: because they believe in it. The notion that the imperial federal government should control every aspect of people’s lives, regardless of the costs or demerits of such control, is an article of faith for the Left, not a product of reason. Conversely, leftists never offer free-market solutions to problems like healthcare reform because they abjure free markets.
-
Don't count on SCOTUS to do the right thing. We have only four justices who believe in the Constitution. Four others believe they should develop policy, regardless of the Constitution. And one who swings both ways, depending on his mood that day. Ginsburg and Breyer can be counted on to base their decisions on international law; and there's no doubt about Kagan: [youtube=425,350]<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DSoWGlyugTo&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DSoWGlyugTo&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>[/youtube]
You're right...I heard on the local news that this judge is not against the whole bill, just feels that the bill needs to be reformed a little because only PARTS of it are unconstitutional. From what they are telling me, he is still for it, just removing the parts that are against the Constitution or changing them up a bit so that they can go hand in hand with the Constitution.
If they really do go forward with that idea, I sure hope that they reform it. From what the news was saying, it sounded as though the judge was also trying to remove the part of the bill that would require anyone who refuses insurance to pay a penalty fee. If that is true, that would be fine with me and I'd be all for the bill! Just let me keep living my life, let me have any insurance company I want or none at all, and I'll be fine with the bill; otherwise, the bill can be destroyed and forgotten for all I care. But really, if that happened, I see no reason for such a law...if an injury is serious enough, no hospital is allowed to turn away a patient regardless of citizen status or their financial status thanks to previous laws which allow this. Although, I suppose this law would change it so that these that desperately need the medical treatment can have their medical service at no cost to them (technically since they will be taken from taxes) and not build a huge debt. I wonder if this bill does go through, what will happen to those who were not able to pay their previous balance and left in debt.
Has anyone here read the entire bill? I wouldn't point fingers at anyone who didn't read it and mock them because I haven't read it, and the politicians who put it through didn't read it either...*cough cough* Pelosi *cough cough*
-
Here's the judge's opinion: http://aca-litigation.wikispaces.com/file/view/Opinion.pdf
-
Doesn't this bill fall on its face if any of the provisions are found unconstitutional?
-
Doesn't this bill fall on its face if any of the provisions are found unconstitutional?
No, the provisions are all severable. So the rest of the law stays intact--as law--even if the USSC rules that the mandate is unconstitutional. But it's unworkable as policy, if that's what you mean, without the mandate, so in that sense it would fall on its face if this decision is finally upheld at the USSC.
Breyer is a pompous ass, but I'm not sure even he would think the mandate makes any Constitutional sense. And, as a sometimes betting man, I'd bet Kennedy casts his lot against it. This may turn out 6-3. Maybe even 7-2...
....Because I'm not 100% sure about Souter voting for this. Really. For all his libness, he has a remarkably mathematical mind that may lead him to see the illogic of the mandate.
Of course we can forget Sotomayor and Ginsburg.
-
No, the provisions are all severable. So the rest of the law stays intact--as law--even if the USSC rules that the mandate is unconstitutional. But it's unworkable as policy, if that's what you mean, without the mandate, so in that sense it would fall on its face if this decision is finally upheld at the USSC.
Breyer is a pompous ass, but I'm not sure even he would think the mandate makes any Constitutional sense. And, as a sometimes betting man, I'd bet Kennedy casts his lot against it. This may turn out 6-3. Maybe even 7-2...
....Because I'm not 100% sure about Souter voting for this. Really. For all his libness, he has a remarkably mathematical mind that may lead him to see the illogic of the mandate.
Of course we can forget Sotomayor and Ginsburg.
The Dems did not include a severability clause in HCR.
-
The Dems did not include a severability clause in HCR.
Judges can just declare severability if asked by one side or the other to do so, though.
-
I thought that was the case, but this monster bill has both sides talking so much trash even the lawyer sites I've read differ on their opinions of this.
-
Judges can just declare severability if asked by one side or the other to do so, though.
Then that could be appealed, also unless it's the USSC.
-
Then that could be appealed, also unless it's the USSC.
Oh for sure, and we can hope so. I'm not even sure if Sebelius asked for severability; Hudson may have just done it on his own. Both the 4th Circuit and the USSC can take or leave any part of Hudson's decision, and add whatever they want, assuming it's upheld.
The reason I'm holding out some hope for Souter is that the aggregation of inactivity--it's bad enough that Wickard gave us "aggregation" of intrastate activity at all--lacks any logical limit. The inacivity argument could be applied to aggregate the failure to purchase anything. I suspect that the pure illogic of this may offend Souter's generally theorem-based reasoning.
-
:argh:
:thatsright:
I seem to have completely spaced, had a senior moment, and forgotten what year this is, and you were all too kind to correct my ridiculous mistake. Obviously Souter retired in 2009.
-
'Resolving a difference in the Circuits' is one of the classic jurisdictional provinces of the Supreme Court, though it does not HAVE to take the case, nor is it the exclusive way this question would get there. As far as there being a difference in the Circuits goes, though, there are a surprisingly wide number of situations where Federal agencies have to apply law one way in one State, and differently in another one, due to the States being in different Federal Circuits with different governing rulings on some fine point of evidence law, what exactly certain environmental law regulations mean, etc.
Basically, the cases start out in separate Circuits (And so necessarily different Districts, into which each Circuit is divided). In each Circuit, it begins with an initial decision by a District Judge; one or both parties willl be unhappy and appeal it, which ultimately generates a Circuit Court (Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, to be more precise) decision and opinion. When two different Circuits end up issuing conflicting opinions on the same point, it's a given that someone involved will try to get the Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari (Meaning that they accept the case for decision) to resolve the discrepancy. It is optional for the Court to accept these cases, it depends on how serious they think the effect would be.
I am not really following the litigation on these cases, and don't know if a fundamental conflict with the pro-HellCare decision has irrevocably been raised yet.
The first ruling sets a quasi-precedence for the other circuit. On this issue it is not state specific. SCOTUS is taking this.
-
Judges can just declare severability if asked by one side or the other to do so, though.
Definitely not on this - I agree with Heritage, if they agree to it they are cowards.
-
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/13/judge-rules-obamacare-mandate-goes-beyond-letter-and-spirit-of-the-constitution/#more-48209
Heritage breaks it down nicely.