Posted on 12/13/2010 9:51:11 AM PST by Kartographer
A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I have had that thought. Sounds like the libs are in for a crisis. And we know that they never let a good crisis go to waste. Seems they always put themselves in a win-win situation. What will be up their sleaves now?
No offense. At least my congressman said today that he will do everything he can to dismantle this thing. I’m going to give his office a call today.
Might want to kill it first. Sounds like "Man vs Food".
Mel,
Many suits have been brought against this law. I am not sure how many, but they number in the dozens. Some have been dismissed already. One was brought by Liberty University. Others have been brought by individuals and businesses. The ruling yesterday is the first brought by a State. The hearing this Thursday is the biggest yet, as 20 states, 32 U.S. Senators and the Speaker in Waiting John Boehner are either plaintiffs or friend of the Court filers.
IN SUMMARY: The flow is that the cases that survive the district (lower) level without being dismissed will perhaps be merged and heard at the Appellate level. The Appeals Courts can 1) Hear arguments 2) Not hear and let lower ruling stand or 3) Not hear and refer case directly to the Supreme court.
** Keep an eye on Judge Roger Vinson’s Court (the 20 states case). This one will hold the most impact. The Appellate Court over the Northern District of Florida is the Fifth Circuit out of Atlanta. The Supreme Court justice with jurisdiction over Florida is Anthony Kennedy.
Cheers,
Kate
Thanks, I really had no idea how it flowed, i kept hearing federal court in the other 2 judgements and didn’t understand process.
I am not so sure of that right now. I will be and obvious 5-4 decision either way, with the four leftists on the court, however, Kennedy is the key justice in this case. He may vote with the four conservative justices.
God Forbid anything such as this happen. That is truly NOT the American way to deal with one’s opponents, left or right.
it’s would have been interesting to have had South Carolina be at the front of this legal challenge to the HCO (Healthcare overhaul). It was South Carolina that went against the federal government and broke from the United States first in 1860, defining itself as a stubborn, headstrong state.
From the article:
“Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government’s reach.”
Regarding your list of supreme court justices, do you know their records when it comes to interpreting the commerce clause?
As you know, the Supreme Court, since the 1930’s has given the government extreme leeway in its definitions and discussions of the interstate commerce clause so as to avoid overturning federal legislation. Have the four “conservative” judges taken issue with that way of thinking? It would be quite an about-face on the part of the court to overrule Obamacare on that basis, given its prior deference, and would call into question a lot of other federal legislation, I would think.
i do not know their commerce clause positions...
and i agree that the clause has been given unbounded leeway. but this is fining for failing to engage in commerce. that would fit into the “no commerce clause”, but not the commerce clause - notwithstanding fining individuals for making a particular purchasing [or non purchasing] choice is way illegal. it’s way different.
no way commerce clause can be used to regulate this.
im uneducated o
Virtually all bills, like contracts, contain severability clauses. It’s standard boilerplate.
If this were the World Series, that might make some sense: Indeed, it would be a good thing to be up, two games to one.
But that is really not how this works.
Eventually, it will make its way to the US Supreme Court. There was never much uncertainty about this; but given the fact that there is now a split decision among the lower federal courts, it is a virtual certainty.
Some Republican lawmakers have asked that the SCOTUS take the case on an expedited basis, thereby bypassing the appeals court. Whether this will happen, I really do not know. However, even if it does happen, we could be looking at a time frame of another 12-18 months before the case is reviewed.
I am certainly no legal scholar; but it is my understanding that this legislation does not contain the usual "severability clause" that would allow the bulk of the law to stand, even if a part of it were found to be unconstitutional. So if the SCOTUS agrees with this court that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the entire law must fall, according to my understanding of the matter.
Some people believe that this was a mere oversight on the part of the crafters of the law. If it was, then it is an indication of terrible sloppiness. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that these folks meant to force the hand of the Court--something like a prosecuting attorney that removes lesser charges from the indictment, so that the jury may not issue a "compromise" verdict.
Do others know anything more about this?
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.