Another Federal Court ruling on ObamaCare expected Monday

[joaama]

I wonder what he'll say about RomneyCare.

 

[rareboy]

OK.

I'll bite.

Who is Beardaddy going to be now?

And I still don't understand how the government can be permitted to force people to purchase car insurance but not health insurance.

And don't barf up the old argument that 'you don't have to drive'...it isn't relevant to the core of the legal argument at hand.

 

[laikaNYC]

OK.

I'll bite.

Who is Beardaddy going to be now?

And I still don't understand how the government can be permitted to force people to purchase car insurance but not health insurance.

And don't barf up the old argument that 'you don't have to drive'...it isn't relevant to the core of the legal argument at hand.

Of course that "old argument" is valid. You actually have a choice not to drive. Should you kill yourself if you don't want to purchase health insurance?

 

[laikaNYC]

And thank you to Judge Vinson for ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional

 

[Kulindahr]

And I still don't understand how the government can be permitted to force people to purchase car insurance but not health insurance.

And don't barf up the old argument that 'you don't have to drive'...it isn't relevant to the core of the legal argument at hand.

The government owns the roads, so of course they can set the requirements for using them. A store can require shoes and shirts, a bar can require ties, so the owner of roads can require insurance.

Of course that "old argument" is valid. You actually have a choice not to drive. Should you kill yourself if you don't want to purchase health insurance?

No, just stay at home. Or leave your body behind when you do.

 

[joaama]

The mandate is not enforceable.

There is no punishment for not buying health insurance.

Yes, you get a fine but there is no punishment for not paying that fine. In the law itself it says you don't get an extra fine or jail time. It says that there isn't a way to force you to pay the fine.

 

[joaama]

This ruling kicked the WHOLE bill out...

see page 76 of his ruling

I know that.

I was saying in general.

Doesn't matter the bill isn't gone. Just because he said so doesn't mean anything.

14 judges have already ruled that it is constitutional or refused to hear the arguments that it isn't.

More than the 2 who have said it is unconstitutional.

 

[laikaNYC]

I know that.

I was saying in general.

Doesn't matter the bill isn't gone. Just because he said so doesn't mean anything.

14 judges have already ruled that it is constitutional or refused to hear the arguments that it isn't.

More than the 2 who have said it is unconstitutional.

How do you think the Supreme Court will rule?

And there are more than 2 who have it said it unconstitutional.

 

[joaama]

not true... constitutionality was not the issue in most of those

Huh, I wonder who you are. BD.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think SCOTUS will say the mandate is an unfounded extension of federal power.

 

[joaama]

How do you think the Supreme Court will rule?

And there are more than 2 who have it said it unconstitutional.

How many more have ruled it unconstitutional?

I think they will slap this ruling down and say it is constitutional and the law will stand.

I see Alito, Scalia and Thomas voting that it is unconstitutional and Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer voting that it is constitutional. The swing votes will be Roberts and Kennedy, at least one of them will vote that it is constitutional.

 

[hotatlboi]

As usual, it will depend on how Kennedy sees it.

Personally I think he will uphold the law.

This judge said the entire law was unconstitutional which is absurd, no single legal justification can hold for every single provision.

This was clearly a partisan ruling.

 

[Kulindahr]

How many more have ruled it unconstitutional?

I think they will slap this ruling down and say it is constitutional and the law will stand.

I see Alito, Scalia and Thomas voting that it is unconstitutional and Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer voting that it is constitutional. The swing votes will be Roberts and Kennedy, at least one of them will vote that it is constitutional.

Kagan and Sotomayor think government should be allowed to do anything it wants, so that's a no-brainer. They're almost as bad trash as Scalia and Thomas.

 

[joaama]

Kagan and Sotomayor think government should be allowed to do anything it wants, so that's a no-brainer. They're almost as bad trash as Scalia and Thomas.

I don't think they've been on the court long enough to make that determination.

 

[JB3]

How many more have ruled it unconstitutional?

I think they will slap this ruling down and say it is constitutional and the law will stand.

I see Alito, Scalia and Thomas voting that it is unconstitutional and Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer voting that it is constitutional. The swing votes will be Roberts and Kennedy, at least one of them will vote that it is constitutional.

Kagan would have to recuse herself.

Roberts will rule that the mandate is not constitutional, and I would wager Kennedy will as well.

 

[JB3]

I don't think they've been on the court long enough to make that determination.

Use your brain before you write a post, please. Sotomayor was a federal judge so its easy to figure out how she'll rule and her attitudes. Kagan's is a little trickier, but all you have to do is look at the positions she's defended and written about in the past.

 

[JB3]

As usual, it will depend on how Kennedy sees it.

Personally I think he will uphold the law.

This judge said the entire law was unconstitutional which is absurd, no single legal justification can hold for every single provision.

This was clearly a partisan ruling.

Did you even read it? He said quite clearly that the reason the entire law is unconstitutional is because the law, as currently written, REQUIRES the mandate, to function. He said that he could not simply strike that portion down, because the law as currently written would be meaningless without it.

I also don't understand how you think this was a partisan ruling. The judge even made it clear that congress has the authority to reform healthcare because of its importance to the economy, but that its authority is not unlimited. While you might not like it, the legal reasoning behind the decision is sound; congress does not have the right to regulate what citizens aren't doing. They do not have the right to tell people that they must purchase insurance.

 

[hotatlboi]

Did you even read it? He said quite clearly that the reason the entire law is unconstitutional is because the law, as currently written, REQUIRES the mandate, to function. He said that he could not simply strike that portion down, because the law as currently written would be meaningless without it.

It wouldn't be meaningless, just perhaps less effective. But an ineffective law is not an unconstitutional one, huge difference. If the law would not be as effective without the mandate, then it's up to Congress to revise it in light of the judicial guidance they have received. Striking down the entire thing (when it is clearly not all unconstitutional) is a gross overreach. It's judicial activism, you know, the thing conservatives abhor when it doesn't go their way.

I also don't understand how you think this was a partisan ruling.

He quoted Obama's campaign statements in the summary just to rub it in, and he even referenced the Boston Tea Party, lol. In parts the opinion reads more like a political rant than a legal ruling.

 

[thevofl]

So when is judicial activism good and when is it bad? Just asking.

 

[hotatlboi]

So when is judicial activism good and when is it bad? Just asking.

Obviously, it's bad when you are on the losing side, good otherwise.

In fact, as Ted Olson pointed out, that's really the de facto definition of judicial activism for many.