| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/12/2011 11:47:07 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Duplicate |
Posted on 08/12/2011 10:43:58 AM PDT by Keith in Iowa
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 ...
That’s going to leave a mark..
High-fives are in order, I believe
If this doesn’t cut his vacation short, nothing will.
I fear you are correct.
That one's locked.
Thank you for the explanation.
I'm assuming it's a slam dunk that the whole bill is voided once a law suit is brought, after a part of the bill has already been ruled unconstitutional.
We need to keep praying that this monstrosity goes down BIG time!
No idea but theres no way he lets the one thing he did for the left go down in flames. He’s failed on pretty much every other campaign promise. This is his ‘signature’ program. Just because it won’t pay for itself doesn’t mean he won’t try and enforce the rest regardless.
It will collapse under its own weight.
They were ruling on a lower court ruling that said the whole bill was unconstitutional. By leaving the balance of the law alone they in essence did rule on severability.
Implied????? I thought the severability clause was specifically highlighted by a lower court judge and the ruling was that because there was not a severability clause written into the signed law, if any portion of it was found to be unconstitutional, it all was that way. What kind of flim flam are they trying to pull now? I realize they think they are above the law, but what is really needed is for the rigged Supreme Court to say it.
Which would never be passed by a GOP House.
Some courts have upheld it others struck it down. What’s so significant about this ruling?
Question - the ruling’s not necessarily final is it? Obama can still appeal to the full appeals court instead of a 3-judge partial panel. What does that mean?
finally someone actually applied common sense and actual written law into a decision.
Even idiots can read the bottom number on their 401K plan statement
S&P downgraded us due to entitlements above all things and this is a major entitlement added to our debt. I would think that also would be considered in any decision made.
Hey i don’t wear black robes. The original ruling threw out the whole law. This left part intact. They could have upheld the original ruling. The fact that they didn’t means that they did indeed rule on severability.
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.