Posted on 02/23/2011 8:10:37 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction
A federal judge has upheld the national health care law, making it the fifth ruling on the merits of the legal challenges to the individual mandate.
The ruling by the Clinton appointee, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbia continues the pattern of Democratic-appointed judges siding with the Obama administration and Republican judges siding with the plaintiffs in ruling the mandate unconstitutional. Kessler's ruling comes in a case brought by individual plaintiffs, where as the two decisions striking down the mandate have come in cases brought by 27 states, based in Virginia and Florida.
Like the other decisions upholding the law, the logic of Kessler's ruling demonstrates how broadly one has to interpret congressional powers to find the mandate constitutional. In something right out of Harrison Bergeron, Kessler notes that Washington has the authority to regulate "mental activity":
As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power...However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
The problem with comparing different cases, and doing the “democrat judges rule for the law, republicans don’t” is that they are not the same cases.
In this case, the plaintiff argued that a mental decision was not commerce, and therefore should not fall under the commerce clause. This judge ruled that this distinction was not viable.
But that’s not the same argument used by the states. Plus, the states had better grounds to sue because they are currently having to implement a law that they felt was unconstitutional, while an individual for the most part has yet to be effected by the individual mandate itself.
Individuals may not really get a standing to sue until one of them is forced to pay higher taxes because they didn’t buy insurance.
It is well-known that the two cases we won were the best-argued cases, the other cases have been individuals trying different angles.
The commerce clause has become to socialist America what the Enabling Act was to Hitler's Germany: the carte blanche for any power the government cares to exercise.
fixed.
Progressives think that:
interstate commerce clause +
taxing & spending clause (general welfare clause)
Is all the really need.
All I can think of is if the Repubs don’t find their courage, CW2 is on the way.
That’s right. The SOB actually said he only needs one term.
Defund, defund, defund.
I thought the commerce clause pertains to INTERSTATE activity.
How do these bien-pensants of the judiciary know whether your mental activity is crossing state lines?
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.