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

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
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/admin/abuse?id=2762798



Skip to comments.

Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law
Reuters ^ | 8/12/11 | Reuters

Posted on 08/12/2011 10:43:58 AM PDT by Keith in Iowa

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last
To: wmfights; Keith in Iowa; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; xzins; Forest Keeper
How can they rule the balance of the law remains in effect? My understanding is the law was written without a severability(?) clause.

The severability issue may not have been before the court. The court ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional. Unless they were specifically asked to make a determination that the entire bill should be declared void, then they would not have had the jurisdiction to rule that the rest of the bill is void.

The issue was likely limited to whether or not the mandate was constitutional. Unless they were briefed on the effect of the ruling and they were asked to specifically overturn the entire 2200 pages of legislation, then I don't think it would have been proper for this court to void the entire bill.

That will be another lawsuit in another court.

21 posted on 08/12/2011 10:59:57 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa

Obamacare is going to the SC and going down. Praise the Lord!


22 posted on 08/12/2011 11:00:52 AM PDT by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

If only our Congressman Billybob were still with us to savor the victory...


23 posted on 08/12/2011 11:03:17 AM PDT by Keith in Iowa (Hope & Change - I'm out of hope, and change is all I have left every week | FR Class of 1998 |)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Quilter

‘0bama and his orcs’

LOL, describe that bunch of nitwits to a T


24 posted on 08/12/2011 11:04:00 AM PDT by tgusa (Gun control: deep breath, sight alignment, squeeze the trigger......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I was thinking exactly the same thing. If there is no severability clause how can it stay in effect?


25 posted on 08/12/2011 11:04:57 AM PDT by GilGil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I was thinking exactly the same thing. If there is no severability clause how can it stay in effect?


26 posted on 08/12/2011 11:04:57 AM PDT by GilGil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I was thinking exactly the same thing. If there is no severability clause how can it stay in effect?


27 posted on 08/12/2011 11:04:57 AM PDT by GilGil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I was thinking exactly the same thing. If there is no severability clause how can it stay in effect?


28 posted on 08/12/2011 11:04:57 AM PDT by GilGil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I was thinking exactly the same thing. If there is no severability clause how can it stay in effect?


29 posted on 08/12/2011 11:04:57 AM PDT by GilGil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

This means that the individual mandate has been struck down only in the states of the 11th circuit, correct?


30 posted on 08/12/2011 11:05:28 AM PDT by stevenl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

So, although the rest of the law could remain in effect, isn't it also dead, based on not having funds flowing from the uninsured? I'm thinking that the numbers would change to costing trillions more.

31 posted on 08/12/2011 11:05:56 AM PDT by existentialist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free America52
Remember the SCOTUS was specially asked to expedite and Obama said TAKE THEIR TIME? Obama wants is draw out as long as possible. He could care less it is already destroying our country.
32 posted on 08/12/2011 11:05:59 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid! (S&P wasn't worried about us not lifting the debt ceiling - they are worried about the spending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

Amen!

Thank you, Jesus!


33 posted on 08/12/2011 11:07:06 AM PDT by Beaten Valve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

They have to explain how they are going to pay for the rest of the obamacare now that the individual mandate is eliminated.

Seems as if this is the highest court ruling on this to present AND therefore must be the law of the land.


34 posted on 08/12/2011 11:07:20 AM PDT by tirednvirginia ( You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wiggen

“Sucks. They say the rest can stay. They are saying that severabilty clause is implied even if not specifically written.”

If they can not force me to purchase the insurance coverage, then how can they enforce any of the other elements?


35 posted on 08/12/2011 11:07:38 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
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.

But the Court cannot unconstitutionally add a severance clause to the act where there was none and rule, unconstitutionally, that the rest of the law could remain in effect.
36 posted on 08/12/2011 11:08:00 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa

Obama care won’t work without the individual mandate. Great news!


37 posted on 08/12/2011 11:08:10 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Obamageddon, Barackalypse Now! Bam is "Debt Man Walking" in 2012 - Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

The court can say that if they want, but as it is written, the whole thing goes down. SCOTUS will just have to clean up the sloppiness of these clown courts.


38 posted on 08/12/2011 11:08:17 AM PDT by VanDeKoik (1 million in stimulus dollars paid for this tagline!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa

How can the court rule the rest of it is constitutional. Congress neglected to include the separability clause in the law. The entire friggin’ law is now void.


39 posted on 08/12/2011 11:08:57 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa

I bet he is smiling down on from heaven right now.


40 posted on 08/12/2011 11:09:16 AM PDT by Dacula (I reject Satan and Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 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