1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

FL Judge Rules Healthcare Provision Unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by YankeeFan, Jan 31, 2011.

  1. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    The requirement to purchase insurance has been ruled unconstitutional by a judge in Florida.
     
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I personally think it's correct. I also personally think the courts aren't judicial anymore, they are politicized. And any decision like that is politicized. Just depends on the beliefs of the person it goes before. That is why a couple of judges have upheld it and a couple have said it is Unconstitutional. It's all BS. Their decision is made before the case, and they justify it with whatever they can come up with afterward.

    It doesn't matter, in any case. This thing is going to the U.S. Supreme Court. It will end there. Not in a Florida Federal Court. Or a Virginia Court.
     
  3. mustangj17

    mustangj17 Active Member

    At which point it will be politicized even more. So really, its just a matter of how long it takes. I wonder how long this healthcare bill stands before getting reversed. And then how long it is reversed before being reversed back to what it was.
     
  4. Captain_Kirk

    Captain_Kirk Well-Known Member

    Yep, this shouldn't generate cheers from the anti-Obama healthcare lobby. This is just another step along the way in the process.

    Which in the end, I believe will result in the legislation passed last year standing, perhaps tweaked and modified some.
     
  5. Crash

    Crash Active Member

    That sound you hear is Ken Cuccinelli slamming his head into a wall. SCOTUS will most definitely take the Florida case, given that it has 20+ states signed on, and merge Virginia's case with it. Cooch's dream of fast-tracking his suit to the high court and arguing it alone is over. Serves him right, since he's a fucking ass hat.

    As for the actual ruling, it means nothing until it gets to the Supreme Court. And, if I had to guess right now, the SCOTUS will uphold the law 6-3, with Roberts and Kennedy joining the liberals.
     
  6. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    What I don't understand is how a part of a law can be ruled unconstitutional.

    If one part of it is unconstitutional, shouldn't the whole thing be unconstitutional? It was passed as one entire bill. If you take out one part, it changes the whole law. It changes it to something that probably wouldn't have passed otherwise.

    And, in this case, it makes the whole law unworkable.

    If I recall, the same thing happened in McCain-Feingold. PArt of the law was struck down, and we were stuck with the rest of it.
     
  7. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Any prediction oh how soon this gets to the USSC and/or how it rules?

    Look like Anthony Kennedy becomes the most important person in the country.
     
  8. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!! ACTIVIST JUDGES!!
     
  9. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    If the USSC doesn't here it until the Fall of this year, then we'll be getting a ruling in the heat of the Presidential race, guaranteeing that it's an issue.
     
  10. Birdscribe

    Birdscribe Active Member

    We had an offshoot of this in California years ago. As a reach-around to the insurance industry, legislature passes bill mandating every citizen driving a motor vehicle has to have car insurance. Bill gets challenged to the state Supreme Court, whereupon it's upheld.
     
  11. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Just heard them say that on CNN.

    Is that how it always works? I could swear that McCain-Feingold was treated differently and the way the CNN anchors introduced the story, I though the judge had only ruled against that provision, but i see I'm wrong now.
     
  12. Crash

    Crash Active Member

    Roberts will uphold it. He's too much of a corporatist not to.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page