Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judges sharply challenge healthcare law
LA Times ^ | June 8, 2011 | David G. Savage

Posted on 06/08/2011 11:16:34 AM PDT by Mount Athos

A top Obama administration lawyer defending last year's healthcare law ran into skeptical questions Wednesday from three federal judges here, who suggested they may be ready to declare all or part of the law unconstitutional.

And in an ominous sign for the administration, the judges opened the arguments by saying they knew of no case in American history where the courts had upheld the government's power to force someone to buy a product.

"I can't find any case like this," said Chief Judge Joel Dubina of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. "If we uphold this, are there any limits" on the power of the federal government? he asked.

Judge Stanley Marcus appeared to agree. "I can't find any case" in the past where the courts upheld "telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market…. Is there anything that suggests Congress can do this?"

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 11thcircuit; bhohealthcare; courts; frankhull; fubo; gay; gaymarriage; healthcare; individualmandate; itsoktobegay; joeldubina; judgevinson; law; nealkatyal; obama; obamacare; paulclement; rogervinson; socialisthealthcare; stanleymarcus; statesrights; supportenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-109 next last
To: Mount Athos
You should have included this part of the FIRST paragraph;

Skeptical questions from three federal judges in Atlanta suggest they may be ready to declare unconstitutional all or part of the healthcare law promoted by the Obama administration and passed last year by Congress.
The first thing I wanted to know when I read your anemic excerpt, which started, "A top Obama administration lawyer defending last year's healthcare law ran into skeptical questions Wednesday from three federal judges here" -- is: WHERE'S "HERE"???
21 posted on 06/08/2011 11:32:54 AM PDT by FreeKeys ("The evidence that Obama's true agenda is to weaken the country he 'rules' is stacking up."-N.Boortz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
Hell yes they'll appeal to SCOTUS. And if they lose they will scream bloody murder - they are too deeply invested in this tyrannical disaster to do otherwise.

They may well win, however. The Citizens United v. FEC intimidation may have worked. Justices like to go to cocktail parties, as well. OK, maybe Scalia and Thomas may not care for those types of parties.

22 posted on 06/08/2011 11:33:20 AM PDT by Martin Tell (ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Why is it always assumed that someone who has no health insurance is covered by the taxpayer? What about sending the health care recipient the bill?

I think it is acceptable to make sure people understand that if they have the opportunity to buy health insurance and choose not to then they accept liabilily for their own medical costs.


23 posted on 06/08/2011 11:34:58 AM PDT by rushmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Good while your at it’d could you void out the great waygu’s birth cert?


24 posted on 06/08/2011 11:36:21 AM PDT by databoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
the judges opened the arguments by saying they knew of no case in American history where the courts had upheld the government's power to force someone to buy a product.

Right and forcing would be unConstitutional. If allowed then we are one step closer to being a communists type of dictatorship by a small group of insane nitwits in Washington. ALL OF THEM! That includes those that believe in the Constitution but sit on their butts and talk, talk, talk. Nothing is done meaningful.

25 posted on 06/08/2011 11:37:16 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Good while your at it’d could you void out the great waygu’s birth cert?


26 posted on 06/08/2011 11:37:22 AM PDT by databoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Judges often talk in such sharp terms to show how “with it” they are, just before upholding the government case, i.e. upholding Obamacare. Call me pessimistic.


27 posted on 06/08/2011 11:37:51 AM PDT by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

The 11th and the 8th Circuit Courts of Appeals are the MOST “conservative” Circuit Courts in the nation. Obambi will probably lose this one.


28 posted on 06/08/2011 11:40:14 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomlover

Nice!


29 posted on 06/08/2011 11:45:44 AM PDT by rocksblues (Obama, the biggest liar in the history of American politics!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Martin Tell

The Supreme Cowards. They´ll save us.

God help us all.


30 posted on 06/08/2011 11:50:02 AM PDT by onedoug (If)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Castigar
“Katyal said that even the challengers agreed that persons who show up at a hospital seeking treatment could be required to buy insurance on the spot.”

How would this compelling be done? At gunpoint? Under threat of immediate removal from the hospital to cell?

And what insurance company would be crazy enough to write such a policy under those circumstances?

31 posted on 06/08/2011 11:50:50 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Crim
Three dem judges?

Actually, if you read the article, 2 of them were first appointed by Reagan to the district court. One was later appointed to the court of appeals by Bush41 and the other by Clinton.

32 posted on 06/08/2011 11:56:24 AM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pogo101
Prediction: These three Democrat-appointed judges WILL uphold the law and its individual mandate.

Actually one judge (Dubina) was appointed by Republicans (Reagan/Bush41), one (Hull) by a Democrat (Clinton) and one (Marcus) by both a Republican AND a Democrat (Reagan/Clinton). Stanley Marcus was nominated when the GOP had control of the Senate, after having been appointed to the district court by Reagan. So you probably have 2 GOP/1 Dem on this panel.

33 posted on 06/08/2011 12:05:14 PM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pogo101
Prediction: These three Democrat-appointed judges WILL uphold the law and its individual mandate.

Actually one judge (Dubina) was appointed by Republicans (Reagan/Bush41), one (Hull) by a Democrat (Clinton) and one (Marcus) by both a Republican AND a Democrat (Reagan/Clinton). Stanley Marcus was nominated when the GOP had control of the Senate, after having been appointed to the district court by Reagan. So you probably have 2 GOP/1 Dem on this panel.

34 posted on 06/08/2011 12:05:26 PM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative

Sorry for the double post.


35 posted on 06/08/2011 12:07:37 PM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative

Thank you for the correction. The all-Dem panel I was thinking of is the one in the Fourth Circuit. This is the Eleventh.


36 posted on 06/08/2011 12:10:05 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: blackdog
I don't know about YouTube, but here it is at POLITICO...
"I wrote the bill. ... The bill and I are one."
37 posted on 06/08/2011 12:12:02 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

This sounds very promising. However, regardless of what the courts do, Obama and his corrupt democrats already have planned workarounds.... count on it.

They don’t respect the courts orders, the constitution or the laws of the land.

Certainly this country wrecking law must be removed, but for such a removal to work, Obama and the democrats MUST be removed from power, period.

Having said all of that, I am cautiously optimistic.


38 posted on 06/08/2011 12:12:53 PM PDT by Gator113 ("GAME ON." I'll be voting for Sarah Palin, Liberty, our Constitution and American Exceptionalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

I think this is about to reach a tipping point where all of the corrupt health insurance firms who got into bed with Obama because they liked the idea of a mandate are going to realize it’s about to get tossed, and will do a 180 and begin forcefully opposing all other aspects of the law.


39 posted on 06/08/2011 12:15:15 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
If Obamacare is thrown out, then Obamacare will be the centerpiece of his 2012 election.
40 posted on 06/08/2011 12:17:54 PM PDT by Glenn (iamtheresistance.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-109 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson