Posted on 01/31/2011 1:11:55 PM PST by rxsid
The media sure is NOT reporting this one. I’ve had the television on all afternoon (I work at home), and nary a peep.
From the Washington Times
"Judge uses Obama’s words against him
In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
..."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/
And will the "b*tch-slap" he received form Obamugabe in the 2010 SOTU be remembered?
Bammy says “SCREEEEWW YEWWWWW! I’m gonna do it anyway.”
I don’t think that matters. For one thing, these suits are attacking differnt aspects of the monster. And, one Federal judge can’t over-rule another — they are “Kings in their own realm”. It all waits until it can get on the SCOTUS docket, and I don’t see how that can happen until at least 2012.
And will the "b*tch-slap" he received form Obamugabe in the 2010 SOTU be remembered?
-----------------------------------------
In related, relevant news from last year...
"Kennedy: I think I’ll stick around until 2013
posted at 10:55 am on July 6, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Increasingly, Justice Anthony Kennedy has become the most important member of the Supreme Court. After the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor, Kennedy serves as the swing vote between the conservative and liberal blocs on the Court, siding more often with conservatives (but not often enough for their taste). At 74, though, Kennedy is at an age when most men think of retirement — and his departure would set off a political firestorm on Capitol Hill the likes of which haven’t been seen since Clarence Thomas endured his trial by fire in the Senate.
And maybe that’s why Kennedy tells close friends and relatives that he wants to wait a while before retiring … or perhaps it’s because of the man who would pick his successor:
Justice Kennedy, who turns 74 this month, has told relatives and friends he plans to stay on the high court for at least three more years – through the end of Obama’s first term, sources said.That means Kennedy will be around to provide a fifth vote for the court’s conservative bloc through the 2012 presidential election. If Obama loses, Kennedy could retire and expect a Republican President to choose a conservative justice.
Kennedy, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, has been on the court 22 years. He has become a bit of a political nemesis at the White House for his increasing tendency to side with the court’s four rock-ribbed conservative justices.
In fact, as the New York Daily News implies, Kennedy may have made that decision after this year’s State of the Union address:
Without naming Kennedy, Obama was unusually critical of his majority opinion in the Citizens United case, handed down last January. That 5-4 decision struck down limits on contributions to political campaigns as an abridgement of free speech.Obama called the ruling “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power … in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
He was so angry that he took the unusual step of blasting the decision in his Jan. 27 State of the Union address, with Kennedy and five other justices looking on.
Obama certainly reveled in his prime-time, televised, cheap-shot attack at jurists who couldn’t fire back. Samuel Alito took fire from the media for having just mouthed a rebuttal. The only revenge any of them can take is to make sure that they stay in place until Obama leaves office. The “at least” part of the report almost certainly means that retirement at 80 may be just as possible as retirement at 76. After all, John Paul Stevens didn’t decide to retire until he was almost 90 years old.
Perhaps the timing is just a coincidence and Kennedy didn’t have plans to retire any earlier even prior to the 2008 election. However, this looks more like a quiet revenge, and a reminder to Obama that Kennedy will likely remain relevant longer than the President."
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/06/kennedy-i-think-ill-stick-around-until-2013/
Hope he has protection from the Obummer thugs
You mean there actually exists a judge that understands what the Constitution is all about....
I had almost given up hope....
Vinson has the reputation of an activist judge. This decision will not survive review on appeal.
Note well: “liberal activist Supreme Court Justice” John Roberts recently struck a sole provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley law, which likewise lacks a severability clause. He wrote: “We agree with the Government that the unconstitutional tenure provisions are severable from the remainder of the statute.”
Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia have a long history bent toward supporting government authority (and as Catholics, supporting “church authority”).
They may go through twisting gymnastics to a new position, but the leopard does not change its spots.
They will claim this is the three dimensional chess that Obama is playing and that by keeping the reform without the mandates will require the Government to set the price setting up the PUBLIC OPTION...and full government takeover of all facets of healthcare...
He doesn’t have to put a stay on it. By ruling it unconstitutional it is DEAD. Now the appeals court may grant supersedeas to suspend the judgement while the upper courts rule on it but I doubt it.
Most excellent news. The judge will be a trigger of solidarity against the illegal health care bill.
What's that ol' saw, again ... "elections have consequences?" Yes, that's the one I'm thinking of.
I don’t think there is any chance that Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan or Sotomayor are going to vote to overturn Obama’s biggest “accomplishment” in office.
By the way, I read the opinion ... it is well worth reading.
I find interesting the government’s arguement for the individual mandate:
* since we require hospitals to treat patients regardless of ability to pay,
* many of those who do not have health insurance don’t pay
* this results in cost shifting to others who do pay, specifically those with health insurance
* which makes health insurance unaffordable
* so we have the right to require individuals to buy health insurance so they will pay
So, the mandate for hospitals to treat regardless of ability to pay leads to a mandate to buy medical health insurance. This illustrates how one government intervention into the economy necessitates further interventions, and why governments grow.
Note that the (unfunded) mandate for hospitals to treat regardless of ability to pay was the FedGov’s way of funding health care for the indigent without raising taxes explicitly (like medicare and medicaid). TANSFAFL (There Ain’t No Such Thing As a Free Lunch) - someone pays, and it is both cowardly and arrogant of Congress to demand distortion of health care finance just to avoid revealing how much their mandate costs.
Maybe we should take a step back and rethink the unfunded hospital mandates.
The news isn’t reporting it that way.
I agree with you, but it will be appealed.
I will NOT comply with Obamacare mandates. Come and effin get me!
Thomas, Scalia, etc., do your duty.
This just shows you how DUMB the Democrats are that jambed this past the public without even reading it themselves!!!
May this be the beginning of the end for this illegal abortion/obombination of a needless, poorly written law!!!
I thought I heard that Kagan would have a conflict of interest in this case since she worked on an integral part of preparing for the law’s implementation. With her recused, the balance changed clearly in our favor, or at least even without Kennedy voting to repeal it would be a miserable tie. I wonder what would happen 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.