Posted on 10/07/2010 2:56:29 PM PDT by speciallybland
A U.S. judge upheld the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul President Barack Obama signed in March, rejecting an argument brought by a self- described Christian law center in the first legal victory for the new law.
U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit today denied the Thomas More Law Center’s request for an injunction against the law and said the group failed to prove the statute is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
“The minimum coverage provision, which addresses economic decisions regarding health-care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need, is a reasonable means of effectuating Congress’s goal,” Steeh wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
Once again, proving that no-one particularly cares for, nor reads, the Constitution.
hey we do not want this activist judge here in the UP of MI. Up here we have enough idiotic judges that are already activists. Sure we can the piss ass judge in an outhouse. There is one problem though the judge if he dies up here in the UP of Michigan in January or February the undertaker has to wait till April to bury his ass in the ground. In the meantime they would prop up his carcas in a courtroom and he still would be able pass some type of judgement. The Obummercare is Unconstitutional not matter how dice it or slice it or use the slap chop
Well, the Supremes are from Detroit.
Still, think of all that time available to FREEZE DRY the guy ~ we’ll be able to put him on display out front of the USSC as a message to all!
Its an outstanding start.
But just a start.
the son of bitch judge is nothing but a fricking MUslim. What do you expect from a person whom is exempt from the Obummercare. It is a political decision not based on the Commerce Clause. The judge is an ass and here in Michigan we can strive to remove his ass from the bench permanently
What a crappy judge to decide that not engaging in commerce is the same as engaging in commerce.
Not likely to happen....for a while. Some would say not a chance in hell, but just suppose for a moment:
We win 1894-like numbers in congress (100 seats in the house)...we win the senate...the dems are literally decimated. Obama is toxic....that's TOXIC spelled large. We can overide in the house, but not the Senate. Suddenly, any elected official who wants to save their ass sees the eligibility issue as legitimate, and it goes forth. Resignation is the only way to save face, so Obie resigns. He's found to be ineligible. Reboot to 2008. Dems have a chance to live again.
In this political era, anything is possible.
The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. Indeed, the opposite is nearly always true. The question is how participants in the health care market pay for medical expenses — through insurance, or through an attempt to pay out of pocket with a backstop of uncompensated care funded by third parties.
This phenomenon of cost-shifting is what makes the health care market unique. Far from “inactivity,” by choosing to forgo insurance, plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars, $43 billion in 2008, onto other market participants. ...
The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings, who do not oppose medical services on religious grounds, they cannot opt out of this market. As inseparable and integral members of the health care services market, plaintiffs have made a choice regarding the method of payment for the services they expect to receive. The government makes the apropos analogy of paying by credit card rather than by check. How participants in the health care services market pay for such services has a documented impact on interstate commerce. Obviously, this market reality forms the rational basis for Congressional action designed to reduce the number of uninsureds.
I see the point politically, and I can understand that.
Whatever happens politically, though, we have GOT to find a way to reclaim the rule of law, and the people who have perpetrated the crimes necessary to pull off that fraud need to pay - the corrupt players in government, media, and law enforcement. If we don’t reclaim the rule of law then there’s nothing to keep the whole thing from happening again.
If we have the checks and balances, the separation of powers, the Constitution actually meaning something, and the rule of law, then neither dems nor pubs can ever run away from us like this again, and given the corruption that power brings, that is the only thing that can keep government from being complete tyranny.
So to me, getting the pubs in is a means to an end far more important than just changing the names of the people who screw us. We need to get the pubs in and we need to hold their feet to the fire to reestablish the rule of law - not only for the dems and to clean up all the crap they’ve perpetrated on this nation, but also for the pubs themselves to have to obey, complete with a way for the people to hold ALL government, media, and law enforcement accountable.
Just what I was wondering...why would an independent group like Thomas More take a case before a court that operates out of Detroit?
They need someone to teach them some more about judge-shopping.
Isn’t that the truth. This guy probably has never read the Constitution.
He even LOOKS stupid.
According to most judges, the Constitution says:
“Commerce Clause or Promote General Welfare.”
Shortest constitution in history...has only 6 words.
Know those 6 words and anything is possible.
Natch. *rolls eyes*
Are you prejudice against Fast Food places? Don’t forget about the UNIONS. They were first in line.
“Take it to SCOTUS they’ll overturn the Detroit Dweeb.”
Don’t be so sure. When W Bush signed the Campaign Finance Bill (or something like that) he assumed the Supremes would strike it down. But he signed it to keep McCain and the media off his back.
I think you know the rest of the stroy. And that was before Sotomeyer and Kagan.
My error, they were the first in line for the exemptions.
This is such a mess.
Obie was a once-in-a-lifetime chance. Tables turned....it's now a once in a lifetime chance for Pubbies to end this crap. Chaos will come if they don't. Some 60 to 100 new congresscritters will be there to make the point. Shouldn't be that difficult with a nice sized tsunami.
I can't wait for Nov. 2 and 3.
Think about it judge Steeh, if you can, if I can't buy a Chevy, and insure it through AIG, are you going to send me to prison?
Think about it judge Steeh, if you can, what if 0bama grants a pardon to McDonalds not to follow the law today, and forces me to buy a Big Mac tomorrow? Think about it judge Steeh, if you can, will Dear leader grant the same pardon to Burger King? Wendy's? Carl's Jr and Checkers?
Think about it, if you can judge Steeh, what does the Commerce clause really say and mean?
Judge Steeh, methinks you are a clinton appointed 0bama shill.
5.56mm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.