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

Skip to comments.

Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law
Reuters ^ | Jeremy Pelofsky and James Vicini

Posted on 08/12/2011 10:43:48 AM PDT by americanophile

(Reuters) - An appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 11thcircuit; courtonobamacare; dubina; frankhull; healthcare; hull; individualmandate; joeldubina; marcus; obamacare; romneycare; ruling; stanleymarcus; statesrights; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-185 next last
To: tobyhill

Yes, that’s a self-reinforcing proposition; it’s legal because the government does it. We’re so far afield of the Constitution, it’s hardly recognizable.


141 posted on 08/12/2011 2:17:04 PM PDT by americanophile ("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Thanks for the link. The article was very illuminating.

Mrs. Prince of Space

142 posted on 08/12/2011 2:20:27 PM PDT by Prince of Space ("...raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure." Sen. Obama, 3/16/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

Did you see the Pelican Brief?


143 posted on 08/12/2011 2:36:57 PM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!


144 posted on 08/12/2011 2:47:23 PM PDT by mojitojoe ( 1400 years of existence & Islam has 2 main accomplishments, psychotic violence and goat curry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Electric Graffiti

SS and Medicare laws were funded by new taxes, written as taxes within the taxing authority of congress.

The Obamination mandate was a regulatory fine, buy it or pay a fine, not a tax so not covered by congresses taxing authority. So they tried to put lipstick on the pig and claim it was covered by the commerce clauses regulatory power.

There are a lot of lawyers in Congress and the guy in the oval office allegedly lectured on constitutional law... no doubt he had hoped to pack the court before this gets there.


145 posted on 08/12/2011 2:48:01 PM PDT by Valpal1 ("No clever arrangement of bad eggs ever made a good omelet." ~ C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

Such good news deserves a happy dance!

146 posted on 08/12/2011 2:54:03 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
Thanks for the reply. Let me put it another way. If Obamacare remains on the books, me, and millions of people like me, will never pay $20k/year nor we will we pay the $2500 penalty. It will be interesting to see how this works out.
147 posted on 08/12/2011 2:58:27 PM PDT by robert14 (Obamacare from another angle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

GREAT NEWS!.................wow, this may ruin the day for some of the jackazzzzes who pushed that monstrous, unworkable joke of a bill AGAINST the will of the majority of Americans (who pointed to it's UnConstitutionality, as well). I STILL CAN'T BELIEVE THE SO-CALLED "SPEAKER" SAID "WE'LL FIND OUT WHAT'S IN THE BILL WHEN IT PASSES".!!!!!! . Jackazzzes.
148 posted on 08/12/2011 2:58:50 PM PDT by NoRedTape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
Obama really has had a terrible few weeks.

Really? He's been partying hardy and people throwing money at him and will continue to the end of the month. I'd say our military/seals has the reign on a terrible few weeks and well as America, itself for three years!
149 posted on 08/12/2011 2:59:09 PM PDT by presently no screen name ( BHO....the destroyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
It's only a 3 judge panel but one of the two majority is a Clinton appointee (Frank Hull) the other a Bush41 appointee (Joel Dubina).

The decenter, Stanley Marcus, is a Clinton appointee to the circuit court but originally put on the federal bench by Reagan.

150 posted on 08/12/2011 3:03:13 PM PDT by newzjunkey (I can't wait for the words "former president Barack Obama")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Love it !


151 posted on 08/12/2011 3:10:34 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
now how bout stripping the unions of their not having to report their healthcare on their W2 like the rest of us are going to have to do...
152 posted on 08/12/2011 3:16:11 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Point conceded, but still best to have a single thread to aggregate comments, IMHO.

We need a format that brings a thread back to the top when a new comment is made. This keeps hot topics hot, and let's exhausted threads work there way down naturally. Also eliminates duplicate threads.

Not criticizing...just sayin'.

153 posted on 08/12/2011 3:16:52 PM PDT by Bronzewound (When radicals begin to follow rules, are they still radicals?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bronzewound

We already have that...use the tabs.


154 posted on 08/12/2011 3:19:47 PM PDT by EBH (God Humbles Nations, Leaders, and Peoples before He uses them for His Purpose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; LostInBayport; xzins
From the opinion:

“The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the Act’s myriad reforms. The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional system. The Act’s other provisions remain legally operative after the mandate’s excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the presumption of severability has not been met.”

I hate seeing this. At best we won a pyrrhic victory. If the rest of the law is enacted insurance co.'s will go broke and we will end up with the govt running healthcare.

155 posted on 08/12/2011 4:16:08 PM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: robert14; americanophile
Does this mean that I will be guarenteed, under Obamacare, free medical services, if I decide not to pay for Obamacare insurance?

Yes!

No pre-existing conditions can be excluded and no special rates can be charged. I for one feel no loyalty to the insurance companies that climbed in bed with obama and if this law goes into effect I'll drop my coverage and pay for my annual physical myself.

156 posted on 08/12/2011 4:24:44 PM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; Meet the New Boss
Without the individual mandate, Obamacare collapses, it cannot be funded.

The remaining parts stay in effect. IOW, no pre-existing conditions exclusions, no special rates and a broad range of automatic coverage. The insurance co.'s will go broke and the govt will end up running healthcare in this country.

157 posted on 08/12/2011 4:32:08 PM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: wmfights; LostInBayport; xzins; Forest Keeper; blue-duncan
I hate seeing this. At best we won a pyrrhic victory. If the rest of the law is enacted insurance co.'s will go broke and we will end up with the govt running healthcare.

FWIW, the opinion was written by a Clinton appointee.

I personally think that since the mandate was central to the legislation and in fact is the fundamental lynchpin, I don't see how the rest of it can be constitutionally implemented.

The states were suing on this one. The mandate was actually favored by the Insurance companies as this was going to ultimately be a full employment bill for health carriers (not doctors).

With the mandate gone and the rest of the legislation intact, the insurance companies will be screaming bloody murder. They will file their own lawsuits, and speaking as an insurance defense attorney, these insurance companies have armies of lawyers.

158 posted on 08/12/2011 4:42:08 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

The remaining parts stay in effect. IOW, no pre-existing conditions exclusions, no special rates and a broad range of automatic coverage. The insurance co.’s will go broke and the govt will end up running healthcare in this country.
##

Not at all. Congress has the right to pass the other laws. However, Congress intentionally took out the severability clause. This means that if any part of the law is voided the whole law is voided.

The only way around that is for the Courts to go against the clear intent of Congress.


159 posted on 08/12/2011 4:43:06 PM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper; americanophile
This is the symptom of a problem already created by previous government intervention.

Absolutely true. But in our system when you get sick or hurt you go to the hospital and they need to treat you until released - by law. If this person has no coverage or refuses to pay, then the cost is born by other payers into the system. Add in some cost shift because government programs refuse to pay the true cost of service and you have a system that is in crisis.

Let hospitals refuse patients? Sure, until the 5PM news shows someone dieing because they did not have the right card or insurance policy.

If you want to demand the health care delivery system treat anyone, then a mandate is the only option. Just like so much in the US right now, we want our stuff, but don't want to pay for it.

schu

160 posted on 08/12/2011 4:47:28 PM PDT by schu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-185 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