FL Judge Rules Healthcare Provision Unconstitutional

[YankeeFan]

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

 

[The Big Ragu]

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.

 

[mustangj17]

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.

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.

 

[Captain_Kirk]

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.

 

[Crash]

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 ****ing 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.

 

[YankeeFan]

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.

 

[YankeeFan]

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.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

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!!

 

[YankeeFan]

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.

 

[Birdscribe]

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.

 

[YankeeFan]

YF, the ruling voids the entire law, according to this story ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-31/obama-health-care-reform-act-unconstitutional-judge-says-in-26-state-suit.html

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.

 

[Crash]

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.

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

 

[novelist_wannabe]

This was originially in the linked story, but since taken out: "The mandated insurance portion, Vinson said, "was inseverable" meaning the entire law had to be voided."

 

[Crash]

This was originially in the linked story, but since taken out: "The mandated insurance portion, Vinson said, "was inseverable" meaning the entire law had to be voided."

Most laws of this scope have severance clauses, meaning that any portion of the law that is ruled unconstitutional is simply severed from the rest of it, allowing the rest of the law to stand. Of course, the Senate Dems, being the utter ****ing winners that they are, forgot to put in the severance clause. The Virginia judge held that only the mandate was unconstitutional and willingly severed it from the rest of the law. Vinson, of course, did not, striking down the entire law.

 

[YankeeFan]

This was originially in the linked story, but since taken out: "The mandated insurance portion, Vinson said, "was inseverable" meaning the entire law had to be voided."

Got it. That makes sense.

Wish the CNN folks would stop saying that the Judge has struck down certain provisions.

They should say that the Judge found certain provisions unconstitutional and has struck down the entire law.

 

[YankeeFan]

This was originially in the linked story, but since taken out: "The mandated insurance portion, Vinson said, "was inseverable" meaning the entire law had to be voided."

Most laws of this scope have severance clauses, meaning that any portion of the law that is ruled unconstitutional is simply severed from the rest of it, allowing the rest of the law to stand. Of course, the Senate Dems, being the utter ****ing winners that they are, forgot to put in the severance clause. The Virginia judge held that only the mandate was unconstitutional and willingly severed it from the rest of the law. Vinson, of course, did not, striking down the entire law.

I never knew that.

So it depends on whether or not they write the law with severance clauses, huh?

I wonder if they were left out because what the Senate originally passed was essentially a draft. They expected it to go back to a Conference Committee to iron out the differences between it and the House bill.

But, once Brown won in MA, and they couldn't get to 60 votes again, the House was stuck with passing the Senate's version of the bill.

 

[YankeeFan]

Hard to argue with this:

"It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause"

 

[terrier]

Big blow at my house. My 24-year-old stepson is working, but is not yet eligible for health care there. Mrs. T. is not into politics at all, but was very relieved to see that provision in the bill.
Wonder if some of the people who have been really rah-rah to see the bill knocked down are in the same situation.

 

[Crash]

Hard to argue with this:

"It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause"

The problem is that's not the real question, which is actually whether not buying health insurance constitutes inactivity. Since not buying health insurance is a conscious decision that both affects the rest of the market and, eventually, the individual who chose not to buy it, there's a pretty good argument that the act of not buying health insurance is itself "activity."

No one is asking if we can regulate inactivity. That's the easiest way to describe it, so that's the way both politicians and the media are describing it. But that's not the issue as it pertains to the Commerce Clause.

 

[dixiehack]

Doubt that anything changes in real life until appeals are exhausted. Also doubt that appeals court in Atlanta has this wrapped up in time to make the fall Scotus docket.