Federal judge strikes down Obamacare

• Apple

  

  BHO is having a bad month! Unemployment on the rise... Caving in on extending the Bush tax rates... and now His crown jewel is under constitutional assault!
  
  It's the first ruling against the new health care law, more cases in other states are pending and it is sure to go to Supreme Court.
  

  A federal judge in Virginia has declared the Obama administration's health care reform law unconstitutional.

  Link to story
  
  It makes me wonder if BHO will have anything to run on in 2012!
• QuakerOats

  Change we can believe in...............
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Yeah,. we all knew this was coming.
  It is going to the Supreme Court ultimately.
• fish82

  

  ptown_trojans_1;599344 wrote:Yeah,. we all knew this was coming.
  It was go to the Supreme Court ultimately.

  Yep...saw it a mile away. If the Supremes don't uphold this ruling then there's a problem.
• Apple

  

  Just heard that the judge said there is a difference between a tax and a penalty. In this case, mandating that people must buy health insurance or face a fine is a penalty and not a tax as the administration has tried to proclaim. That's just my layman's version of what was said... probably a better way to say it with legaleze.
• Thread Bomber

  

  Radicle judges!!!
  
  
  
  Legislation from the bench!!!!!
• Thread Bomber

  

  That too!
• QuakerOats

  Thread Bomber;599415 wrote:Radicle judges!!!
  
  
  
  Legislation from the bench!!!!!

  
  Actually it is just the opposite -------- UNLEGISLATING that which was tyrannically thrust upon THE PEOPLE by radicals in congress.
• QuakerOats

  http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/12/new-low-in-support-for-health-care-reform.html
• BGFalcons82

  

  I think the score is now Obama 2 judge rulings and the Conservatives/Tea Party 1 ruling. The ruling in Florida's federal court will carry more weight as there are what, 20 states (?) signed up on that case. As previously noted, it's going to the Supremes eventually. The only question is when?
  
  By the way...in these days of belt-tightening and budget busting, why not just go to the Supreme Court right now and save billions in lawyer fees, court costs, news organizations coverage, paper, appeals, yadda yadda yadda? Oh, I forgot...attorneys gotta get their share first. My bad.
• FatHobbit

  

  BGFalcons82;599648 wrote:By the way...in these days of belt-tightening and budget busting, why not just go to the Supreme Court right now and save billions in lawyer fees, court costs, news organizations coverage, paper, appeals, yadda yadda yadda?

  Agreed. But that would be too easy.
• Apple

  

  BGFalcons82;599648 wrote:...By the way...in these days of belt-tightening and budget busting, why not just go to the Supreme Court right now and save billions in lawyer fees, court costs, news organizations coverage, paper, appeals, yadda yadda yadda? Oh, I forgot...attorneys gotta get their share first. My bad.

  I think they call it something like due process under the law but I could be wrong.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Apple;599775 wrote:I think they call it something like due process under the law but I could be wrong.

  
  I know I know I know....but this is as inevitable as death and taxes. Get it over with sooner rather than later and save us all time and money. Makes way too much sense, so fuhgetaboutit.
  
  There is precedent...Florida recount and the Presidential election in 2000 went right to the SCOTUS. So you say, "but wait, that was about whom would be president in January, so it was on the fast track." IMO, this is the single biggest case to come before the SCOTUS since Roe v Wade and it should be treated as such. Why wait? We all know where this is headed and there is already 2 differing federal judges in opposition, so the due process part has been met in some fashion.
• Apple

  

  From the Wall Street Journal:
  Link
  

  Requiring Americans to buy insurance "would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers," wrote Judge Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee in the Eastern District of Virginia. "At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."

• CenterBHSFan

  

  Bet President Obama is now regretting casting aspersions toward the SC earlier this year LOL!
• Sykotyk

  

  If I buy a house, I get a discount on my taxes. If I don't buy a house, I don't get a discount.
  
  If I buy health insurance, I get a discount on my taxes. If I don't buy health insurance, I don't get a discount.
  
  Seems funny to be enraged by usage of a taxing strategy only when it's politically motivated.
• Apple

  

  Sykotyk;600228 wrote:...If I buy health insurance, I get a discount on my taxes. If I don't buy health insurance, I don't get a discount.
  
  Seems funny to be enraged by usage of a taxing strategy only when it's politically motivated.

  That's not entirely correct from what I understand (which could be incorrect as well).
  
  What I understand with the law that BHO signed is that if you don't buy health insurance you are forced under law to pay a penalty, or as the justice department says, you pay a tax.
  
  And that is the crux of what was decided to be unconstitutional... that the congress does not have the ability to tax a form of commerce that a citizen decides not to purchase.
  
  It's confusing so maybe I'm not understanding everything about it.
• majorspark

  

  Sykotyk;600228 wrote:If I buy a house, I get a discount on my taxes. If I don't buy a house, I don't get a discount.
  
  If I buy health insurance, I get a discount on my taxes. If I don't buy health insurance, I don't get a discount.

  Number one Obama said it is not a tax. It is also not a discount on your taxes. Number two if you were accessed a monetary fee by the government for not buying a house your analogy would be correct.
  
  Bottom line is the federal government has no more authority to monetarily penalize you for not purchasing health insurance than it does monetarily penalizing you for not purchasing a house. Or insurance for the house or any such thing.
  

  Sykotyk;600228 wrote: Seems funny to be enraged by usage of a taxing strategy only when it's politically motivated.

  I am against using the power of taxation for any other means other than simply collecting revenue to generally fund the just powers of the government. Whether it be federally through the US constitution, state constitutions, or local authorities.
• tk421

  

  majorspark;600273 wrote:Number one Obama said it is not a tax. It is also not a discount on your taxes. Number two if you were accessed a monetary fee by the government for not buying a house your analogy would be correct.
  
  Bottom line is the federal government has no more authority to monetarily penalize you for not purchasing health insurance than it does monetarily penalizing you for not purchasing a house. Or insurance for the house or any such thing.
  
  
  
  I am against using the power of taxation for any other means other than simply collecting revenue to generally fund the just powers of the government. Whether it be federally through the US constitution, state constitutions, or local authorities.

  +1,000,000. I can't believe some people don't understand that. Does the federal government have the power to penalize Americans for not buying a GM vehicle? Would Americans not complain if the government tried? What about not buying a house? It's the same thing with health insurance, they can't penalize you for not engaging in commerce. Pretty simple to understand.
• gut

  tk421;600369 wrote:+1,000,000. I can't believe some people don't understand that. Does the federal government have the power to penalize Americans for not buying a GM vehicle? Would Americans not complain if the government tried? What about not buying a house? It's the same thing with health insurance, they can't penalize you for not engaging in commerce. Pretty simple to understand.

  
  I agree they are overstepping their power, and that's really where you have to end the discussion. We can't start talking "ends justifies the means".
  
  That said, the cost of uninsured just gets transferred to the rest of us. If I believed this plan would fix that I'd be all for it, but clearly it won't. The govt is always ineffective and inefficient and frequently incompetent. This will do nothing but raise costs for the rest of us, AT BEST (if you can call it that) we will see a decrease in value for what we pay.
  
  Military spending is another example - sometimes the best of social intentions can be just crippling to an economy. It's great to protect our armed forces with the greatest tech out there and it's great to provide health care for everyone, but you can't just ignore the cost side of the equation because it's a noble effort.
• fan_from_texas

  BGFalcons82;599787 wrote:I know I know I know....but this is as inevitable as death and taxes. Get it over with sooner rather than later and save us all time and money. Makes way too much sense, so fuhgetaboutit.
  
  There is precedent...Florida recount and the Presidential election in 2000 went right to the SCOTUS. So you say, "but wait, that was about whom would be president in January, so it was on the fast track." IMO, this is the single biggest case to come before the SCOTUS since Roe v Wade and it should be treated as such. Why wait? We all know where this is headed and there is already 2 differing federal judges in opposition, so the due process part has been met in some fashion.

  
  It's possible you don't remember, but that's not how the Florida recount case when to SCOTUS. Generally, a case goes to SCOTUS either by (1) appealing from an appellate court (one step above the district court) for federal cases or (2) appealing from a state supreme court for state issues (setting aside the more arcane ways a case can reach SCOTUS). Bush v. Gore came up through the state system, while the Virginia lawsuit is going through the federal system.
  
  These cases will make their way through the system, just like any other case. There isn't a fast-track precedent in the constitution for "really big, important issues." Everything goes through the same process, even if the time they spend at each step is abbreviated in certain cases.
  
  Regardless, court costs and atty's fees are likely negligible in these cases, so that isn't a real concern. The state attys are paid a salary through their state, and they incur no extra costs by suing. There aren't private parties involved who would hire outside counsel. It's possible that both sides will bring in heavy-hitter appellate lawyers at the SCOTUS level, but I anticipate those lawyers will work for free because of the massive exposure and importance of the issue. And filing fees are minimal--maybe a few hundred bucks or something. There certainly won't be "billions" in legal fees--if anything extra is spent, it's on the order of tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands, depending on outside counsel. But most of those costs will be incurred regardless of the track used.
  
  In other words, neither the timing nor the expense is a good enough justification to skip the constitutional process. Let it run its course.
• fan_from_texas

  Sykotyk;600228 wrote:If I buy a house, I get a discount on my taxes. If I don't buy a house, I don't get a discount.
  
  If I buy health insurance, I get a discount on my taxes. If I don't buy health insurance, I don't get a discount.
  
  Seems funny to be enraged by usage of a taxing strategy only when it's politically motivated.

  If it were truly this simple, it wouldn't be heavily debated. It isn't this simple. If you want some good discussion of the nuances, check out the Volokh Conspiracy, which has a series of posts that provide some color.
• BGFalcons82

  

  fan_from_texas;600463 wrote:In other words, neither the timing nor the expense is a good enough justification to skip the constitutional process. Let it run its course.

  
  Looks like Eric Cantor agrees with me - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/12/cantor_mcdonnell_call_for_expe.html
  
  In regards to the AG's already being paid: While true, there is no way they have a staff large enough or with enough free time to devote to these cases. From the initial lawsuits, to endless motions, to appeals, to filing briefs, and on and on. They need help to get these things done and both sides will indeed expend billions of dollars hiring private attorneys/staff/investigators going back and forth with ObamaKare lawsuits. Remember, it's just not Virginia....it's over 20 states and the cost of each case must be considered, not just one state.
• fan_from_texas

  BGFalcons82;600661 wrote:Looks like Eric Cantor agrees with me - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/12/cantor_mcdonnell_call_for_expe.html
  
  I realize some are calling for expedited appeal, but for the reasons I posted above, it isn't likely to happen, nor should it. The major disputed provision doesn't go into effect for another 4 years, so this should already be nailed down by that time. I don't like the idea, in general, of carving out the hot issue of the day as being so important that we have to bypass the constitutionally mandated process to get a political issue decided.
  

  In regards to the AG's already being paid: While true, there is no way they have a staff large enough or with enough free time to devote to these cases. From the initial lawsuits, to endless motions, to appeals, to filing briefs, and on and on. They need help to get these things done and both sides will indeed expend billions of dollars hiring private attorneys/staff/investigators going back and forth with ObamaKare lawsuits.

  It won't be billions, for sure. You'd have to hire every attorney at the most expensive firm in the world and have them work on this non-stop for a year to hit the billion-dollar mark. That isn't going to happen.
  
  There will, no doubt, be some outside counsel expenses, but I expect those to be relatively small considering (1) much of this will be done by the govt attys themselves, and (2) because this is a case that can make a career, outside counsel will be lining up to make the argument at SCOTUS for free. Skipping one level (the appeals court) and going straight to SCOTUS, where the heavy lifting and legal work is done, isn't going to save billions in legal fees.
  
  The bigger issue than legal fees is probably compliance costs as states gear up. Those will dwarf legal expenses which, for the reasons I mentioned, aren't going to be appallingly large for an issue of this magnitude.

• Con_Alma

  fan_from_texas;600684 wrote:... The major disputed provision doesn't go into effect for another 4 years, so this should already be nailed down by that time. ....

  The question I have relates to the degree of impact. If a single provision of legislation is deemed unconstitutional does it nullify the the entire law?