Posted on 01/31/2011 12:06:59 PM PST by Marty62
Edited on 01/31/2011 12:19:03 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Updated: Monday, 31 Jan 2011, 3:07 PM EST
Published : Monday, 31 Jan 2011, 3:07 PM EST
(NewsCore) - A Florida federal judge ruled Monday in a 26-state challenge to the national health care law that the provision requiring individuals to purchase health insurance by 2014 or suffer a penalty is unconstitutional, Fox News Channel reported.
Excerpt, see myfoxdetroit
Doesn’t matter. The ruling is clear, it only covers the states that have filed the injunction. They still have an effective law because between 24 to 30 states are not contesting it.
There are also several aspects of the law already in effect. This a can of worms, so don’t get your hopes up quite yet.
Are you saying that Etc, is equal to severability?
Right. However, I should be able to go sun-tanning (in Alabama) without the 10% excise tax now!
Nice job on that. Thanks
this on Politico44
JUDGE WHO? — The White House says a ruling by a federal judge against the new health care law is an example of judicial “overreaching” and “activism.”
“This ruling is well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion,” Stephanie Cutter, an assistant to President Obama, wrote on the White House’s blog after Judge Roger Vinson in Florida ruled that the entire law is unconstitutional. “Today’s ruling ... is a plain case of judicial overreaching. The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s ‘individual responsibility’ provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain.”
http://www.politico.com/politico44/
this on Politico44
JUDGE WHO? — The White House says a ruling by a federal judge against the new health care law is an example of judicial “overreaching” and “activism.”
“This ruling is well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion,” Stephanie Cutter, an assistant to President Obama, wrote on the White House’s blog after Judge Roger Vinson in Florida ruled that the entire law is unconstitutional. “Today’s ruling ... is a plain case of judicial overreaching. The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s ‘individual responsibility’ provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain.”
http://www.politico.com/politico44/
Oh yes, expect a Full scale character assasination squad already assembling against this Judge.
His children and grandchildren are not off limits. Leftist scum.
Alan did a real nice job on that.
I like to point out those who take the time to keep us informed, and do such a nice job of it.
LOL!
Thanks for the analysis fer sher......I would love this thing to be cut and dry, but we know this government all too well. It’s like the Patriot Act. It was declared “Unconstitutional” also, and it is rolling right along like nothing ever happened.
Sorry for duplicate post.
Thanks.
Yeah, that pesky, inconvenient written-Constitution and Rule-of-Law stuff . . .
It was a good post! It desreves to be seen twice!
But this is what we are up against. (Being realistic sucks!)
His ruling says it is because the Federal Government is expected to abide by the decision and historically no injunction has been necessary.
:^))
As John Conner said to the Terminator:
“Are we learning yet?”
Gotta love it.
Why will Kagan HAVE to recuse herself? That assumes her integrity. I do hope you are right.
Actually, this case will go to the 11th Circuit, since it is in Florida. There are a lot of good conservative judges on the 11th Circuit. And the Virginia case will go to the 4th Circuit - a lot of good conservatives there as well. There is one case going to the 6th Circuit - too many libs on that court.
See # 326;
he White House is making the claim that the law falls under the “Individual Responsibility” clause and therefore has Constitutional Authority.
Don’t think for a minute, that several hundred of those Lawyers in Congress who wrote this did not cover their asses. They already had a contingency plan if it encountered opposition. Of course, they knew it would.
She didn't read the same ruling I did, then.
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.