Federal Judge Rules Obama Health Care Reform Is Unconstitutional
Options
DarcSkies
Members Posts: 13,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
richmond, va. -- a federal judge declared the obama administration's health care law unconstitutional monday, siding with virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the u.s. Supreme court.
U.s. District judge henry e. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two others in virginia and michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in florida.
Virginia republican attorney general kenneth cuccinelli filed a separate lawsuit in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance. However, the key issue was his claim that the federal law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional.
smh.............
Comments
-
-
this is what happens when you compromise with a party that explicitly says they are unwilling to compromise with you
-
well damn I'm all for the health care reform real talk I went to the ER a couple of weeks ago long story short I was admitted discharged the next day the bill was 11g's my insurance paid 80% and these son of a ? called me on some I owe a $2,300 co-pay ? with no insurance have made the cost of health care ridiculous
-
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »this is what happens when you compromise with a party that explicitly says they are unwilling to compromise with you
this...
I think american politics are is the dumbest use of democracy ever.
Republicans have no solutions and the democrats stifle their own productivity trying to pander to the republicans.
Obama is one of the better presidents we've had, but he's bound by the utterly idiotic political system that we have here. -
Herrrrrrrrrrre I come to save the daaaaaaaaaaaaaaay........
District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee, has, as expected, ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional. So why are health reformers so unexpectedly pleased?
Hudson ruled against the government, but he didn't stop it (you can read the full opinion here). He refused the plaintiff's request for an injunction against the legislation's continued implementation. The construction of the bill's infrastructure will continue. And second, he refused to overrule anything but the individual mandate itself.
The real danger to health-care reform is not that the individual mandate will be struck down by the courts. That'd be a problem, but there are a variety of ways to restructure the individual mandate such that it doesn't penalize anyone for deciding not to do something (which is the core of the conservative's legal argument against the provision). Here's one suggestion from Paul Starr, for instance. The danger is that, in striking down the individual mandate, the court would also strike down the rest of the bill. In fact, that's exactly what the plaintiff has asked Hudson to do.
Hudson pointedly refused.
Hudson will not have the last word on this. Anthony Kennedy will. The disagreements between the various courts virtually ensure that the Supreme Court will eventually take up the case. But right now, the range of opinions stretch from "the law is fine" to "the individual mandate is not fine, but the rest of the law is."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/is_the_hudson_ruling_good_news.html
Misleading headline. Ktulu's comment is a non-sequitur. Liberals hate the mandate anyway. Conservatives hilariously don't understand that abolishing said mandate would doom the Insurance Industry and accelerate The Road to Single Payer.
All is well. Carry on. Holla. Boss of All Bosses 3 coming soon. -
Yes Swiffness, it was all part of Obama's genius plan to make himself and his party look like retards, lose seats in 2010 and lose elections in 2012, all so that single payer can hap.... wait, it won't happen now because the GOP will take everything again in '12.
-
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »Yes Swiffness, it was all part of Obama's genius plan to make himself and his party look like retards, lose seats in 2010 and lose elections in 2012, all so that single payer can hap.... wait, it won't happen now because the GOP will take everything again in '12.
I have succeeded in angering Ktulu. ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED!
When I say "Road to Single Payer", I'm talking decades. It will start with the states building their own Single Payer systems one-by-one. (which is how Single Payer happened in Canada btw, and is already starting to happen in Vermont, CHEAH) Health Care Reform will greatly assist in this effort, thanks to parts of the bill like Section 1332, invented by your friend and mine Ron Wyden. The mandate is clearly, obviously, a provision that exists solely to keep the entire Health Insurance industry from essentially imploding overnight. Ask Krugman. Conservatives clearly don't realize this, which again, is hilarious.
All is well. Carry on. Holla. Boss of All Bosses 3 coming soon. -
Swiffness! wrote: »When I say "Road to Single Payer", I'm talking decades.
we're all gonna be dead by then -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »we're all gonna be dead by then
Took 15 years to get all 10 provinces onboard in Canada. Of course, 10 is less than 50, Canada is more progressive, and there are Conservatives still mad about the Civil War, so it'll be a slower process in the U.S.
You WILL live to see state-level Single Payer systems however.* Vermont lawmakers are already exploring how to use Obama's HCR to build a single payer system. More will follow.
Granted, you'll prolly have to wait like 100 years for S.P if you live in say, Mississippi, but that's your ? fault for living in ? Mississippi.
* - guarantee assumes you are cancer free, relatively lucky, non-suicidal, and not ? anybody's wife -
? still arguing over health care reform.......
smh
just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic -
Somewhere a Redneck is sitting back in his soon-to-be-foreclosed-on home, smoking his cancer causing cigarettesl, happy about all this...
-
Federal judge Henry E. Hudson's ownership of a stake worth between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform -- the very law against which he ruled today -- raises some ethics questions for some of the nation's top judicial ethics experts. It isn't that Hudson's decision would have necessarily been influenced by his ownership in the company, given his established track record as a judicial conservative. But his ownership stake does create, at the very least, a perception problem for Hudson that could affect the case.
"Is Judge Hudson's status as a shareholder coincidence or causation? Probably the former, but the optics aren't good," James J. Sample, an associate professor at Hofstra Law School, told TPM. "Federal judges are required by statute to disqualify themselves from hearing a case whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It's a hyper-protective rule and for good reason. At the very least, his continued financial interest in Campaign Solutions undermines the perceived legitimacy of his decision."
The rules are pretty straightforward: if a judge is invested in a company that is a litigant in a case, he or she can't be involved. But in cases where a company owned by a judge has an interest in the outcome of a case but is not a direct litigant, the lines get much more murky.
"The company is not technically a direct party in the case," Sample told TPM. But he noted the judge is "treading very close to the line."
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/health_care_judges_interest_in_anti-health_care_pr_shop_raises_questions.php?ref=fpb
lol, and yet he still refused to toss out the entire law -
Swiffness! wrote: »I have succeeded in angering Ktulu. ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED!
i lol'd.............
