Unconstitutional: Florida judge strikes down Obamacare mandate; full decision embedded; all 47 GOP Senators sign on to DeMint repeal bill; White House reax: ruling is “odd,” “overreaching” “activism;” DOJ readies appeal
Hey, remember when conservatives objected to the Obamacare federal individual mandate on constitutional grounds and the liberal establishment laughed?
The word of the day: “Void.”
The constitutional clause of the day: The Commerce Clause.
Via Forbes (and remember that more than half of all states are suing to nullify Obamacare and three states – Missouri, Arizona and Oklahoma – rejected the Obamacare mandate via ballot measure):
Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola ruled today that the primary mechanism used by health reform to achieve universal insurance coverage–the individual mandate–is illegal. If his ruling stands it would void the 2,700 page, $938 billion health reform bill passed last year.
“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications,” Vinson writes.
With this ruling, and a similar one in December by Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia, it’s likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will be the final arbiter of whether ObamaCare stands. Two other lawsuits–one in Michigan and one in Virginia–were thrown out by other federal district judges last year who ruled the constitutional challenge lacked merit…
…The argument that’s had the most traction is based on the limitations of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause explicitly allows the federal government regulate interstate commerce. But it also has been used to justify federal laws that affect other kinds of economic activity.
The question raised by the state lawsuits against the health reform bill is whether refusing to buy insurance constitutes interstate commerce. In his ruling Vinson says that in the past the Commerce Clause has been used to regulate concrete activities like growing marijuana or navigating a waterway, but not used to force someone to do something they weren’t already doing. “It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause,” he writes.
Vinson rejects the administration’s argument that the health care market is unique since nobody can truly opt out, and that not buying insurance is in itself an economic activity since the cost of care then falls on others. Vinson mocks this argument, writing: “Everyone must participate in the food market… under this logic, Congress could [mandate] that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily.” If they didn’t buy wheat bread they might have a bad diet which would put a strain on the health care system, he writes.
***
Today’s decision should be a major source of concern for the Obama administration for at least five reasons.
First, the parties involved. This case involves a majority of the states (26), and the National Federation of Independent Business. If not completely unprecedented, the very fact that more than half the states marched into federal court on behalf of themselves and their citizens to challenge an unconstitutional federal program falls into the category of “beyond any recent memory.” The sheer magnitude of the parties involved guarantees that the courts on appeal will pay particular attention to this case.
Second, the case creates a very bad trend for the administration. Those courts which have taken the time to more fully develop the record in the case, and to have more briefing and hearings (Virginia and Florida), have ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. This is important because, contrary to the White House spin, litigation is not a scoreboard. It is not enough to say that you have won some and lost some. Some district court wins “count” more, because they are more indicative of what is likely to come next. Here, the cases the administration has lost have been better developed, have significant and sophisticated parties, and are in a better position for appeal than the more cursory cases that they have won at more preliminary stages.
Third, the case strikes down the whole of Obamacare based on the unconstitutionality of the mandate. The administration has tried to have it both ways on this one, with the President and key proponents arguing how essential the mandate is, while the Justice Department arguing at times that it was absolutely essential, and at times that it was severable. If the DOJ really wanted to keep the bill severable, perhaps they should not have argued in court that removing the mandate while maintaining the remaining requirements of the bill would “inexorably drive [the health insurance] market into extinction.” Those who would falsely accuse the Judge of overstepping his bounds must recognize both the standards for severability, which he properly applied, and the damning concession made on this point by the Justice Department.
The fourth problem for the Obama DOJ: Judge Vinson’s decision is thorough, well-reasoned, and likely will be very persuasive to appellate judges, and eventually Justices, who review the case. He was judicious, ruling against the states on the spending clause claim and for them on the Commerce Clause. The most important document in any appeal is the decision below, and Judge Vinson’s will give the court of appeals much to consider. Put simply, Vinson has just made the Obama DOJ’s job much more difficult…
***
Update: Sen. Jim DeMint tweets that all 47 GOP Senators are now on board as co-sponsors of his Obamacare repeal bill.
Update: The White House calls the Florida ruling “odd” and “overreaching.”
Pot. Kettle.
***
DOJ gets ready to appeal:
“The department intends to appeal this ruling to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
“We strongly disagree with the court’s ruling today and continue to believe – as other federal courts have found – that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. This is one of a number of cases pending before courts around the country, including several that the government has won in the district courts that are now before the courts of appeals. There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal.”
“We are analyzing this opinion to determine what steps, if any – including seeking a stay – are necessary while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides, that the millions of children and adults who depend on Medicaid programs receive the care the law requires, and that the millions of seniors on Medicare receive the benefits they need.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Illinois Republicans flirting with cigarette tax hike for Obamacare — and a reminder about Orrin Hatch
May 21, 2012 11:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsHigh school fined $15,000 for… selling soda pop during lunch
May 19, 2012 01:29 PM by Doug Powers
101 Comments
Destroying private health insurance was always the goal
May 16, 2012 09:40 AM by Michelle Malkin
43 CommentsObamacare cronyism: The First Lady’s patient-dumping, privacy-meddling scheme
May 16, 2012 08:56 AM by Michelle Malkin
102 CommentsInsurers issuing new round of rebates must credit Obamacare
May 14, 2012 11:26 AM by Doug Powers
66 CommentsWhite House to SCOTUS: ‘Extraordinary disruptions’ to Medicare if Obamacare struck down
May 4, 2012 02:03 PM by Doug Powers
86 Comments
Biden predicts Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare
April 1, 2012 12:49 PM by Doug Powers
63 Comments
Categories: Health care
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearRedstate
» Kimberlin’s Associates Caught on Tape?
When asked what he thought of the decision, president obuma said “We have a Constitution?”
If this isn’t worth the “hot-diggity-damn,” I don’t know what is.
The Commerce Clause objection is the core of it all, as the Supreme Court will doubtless decide upon; if they don’t uphold Judge Vinson on that count, then they might as well vote themselves all out of a job, because Congress will be able to do anything and just say the magic words, “Interstate Commerce.”
Battle’s not over yet, but we just won the first victory in the campaign.
The momentum is slowly building; it may take a while longer, but our country will see the return of constitutional rule of law!
Reagan-appointed trial judge strikes down health care mandate? Stop the presses.
On January 31st, 2011 at 4:20 pm, Red State Skeptic said:
Reagan-appointed trial judge strikes down health care mandate? Stop the presses.
Riiiiight Red State Septic. We should simply ignore the opinions of all those racist teabagging judges appointed before the One (PBUH) assumed his throne. Hey, why don’t we target them all for elimination?
It’s okay, liberals. According to brilliant minds like Schmuckie, the Judiciary doesn’t even come to mind as a branch of government anyway. (Skip to 1:10, if you find listening to Schumer isn’t worth it)
And a few short days ago, the House was voting to void the law on the grounds it’s unconstitutional.
Elections have consequences, We the People are winning.
For the record: if Judge Vinson happens to vacation across the country and stops by here in California, I can guarantee you he won’t have to pay for a drink or a dinner as long as I’m here. Well-decided and well-written, Your Honor.
Note to anyone planning to seek the Republican nomination for the Presidency in 2012: if you want my vote, Judge Vinson WILL be on your shortlist for the first Supreme Court vacancy.
Unconstitutional: Florida judge strikes down Obamacare mandate
I’m not religious, but right now I’m saying a prayer for the continuing good health of Scalia, Thomas, Alito & Roberts.
As for the wobbly Kennedy, all that’s needed there is to find a way to get Kagan to recuse herself. That would leave the worst case scenario decision as a 4-4 tie, meaning Vincent’s decision would stand.
Here’s hoping for another dose of Liberal Pain, in an amount that exceeds 2000′s Bush v. Gore!
Why?
Keep the repeal train rolling down the tracks … this is just the first salvo in this war … but the battle must go forward until we are victorious over the socialist liberals in our midst that have gotten into positions of power within our government …
Don’t lose the faith folks … but don’t rest on your laurels either … We must not waver in this fight … I can assure you there is much more work to be done to save this great country …
Cue the song: Here come da judge! Here come da judge!
In other news, Red State is out of the gate with the leading Liberal meme of the month.
A tie would affirm the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, not the judgment at the trial level. But since Kagan wasn’t even solicitor general when the healthcare law was enacted, she wouldn’t have any reason to recuse herself that I’m aware of.
So you are saying it would have a different effect if it had been a Clinton or Obama appointed judge?
“Today’s HealthCare Mandate word of the day is ‘VOID’. If you’re a liberal and hear this word, SCREAM REAL LOUD!”
You do realize you are at the mercy of the federal government if you support a federal healthcare mandate and allow them to set the parameters that each plan must adhere to in order to qualify in the marketplace, don’t you?
It demonstrates the hole in the Democratic strategy. They intentional pushed this despite NO GOP support, so that they would not have to COMPROMISE. Don’t want no TORP reform mucking up the works. So the GOP has NO vested interest in ObamaCare. NONE, NADA. Making it easy for them to rip it to shreds.
Arrogance breeds defeat.
Actually you probably should ignore most controversial District Court rulings, since the leanings of one judge (a political appointee) won’t have anything to do with the final outcome.
No.
Nope, because liberals never thing this stuff applies to them. But yet, the Mandate passes and the government could make you buy meat or buy anything it decides is in over-supply. It is a necessary aspect of government control of commerce.
Except that this ruling is not controversial.
I understand that my premiums – were I to purchase my own plan – would go up due to the fact that insurers can no longer reject coverage based on preexisting conditions. That’s fine with me, and most Americans if you see the polling.
I guess your definition of “controversial” means “something I disagree with.”
Don’t worry Judge, Mrs. Obama is working an angle like that from her end.
that live in a van down by the river.
Liberal arrogance: What a wonderful gift!!!
Good one.
‘Mrs Obama’ and ‘her end’ should never be in the same sentence, it’s way too tempting.
LOL at your broad humor!
As usual you are wrong. Elena Kagan was not nominated for the Supreme Court until 6 weeks after the Florida lawsuit was filed, which means she was stillt he solicitor general when the lawsuit was filled. Therefore part of her job as solicitor general would be to advise both the President and the justice department on this case.
Then why make the statment? That appears to be what you were infereing by bringing up which President nominated a specific judge.
So we should ignore the ruling of one political appointee becuase of the final rulling of 9 political appointees?
For that matter I guess it shouldn’t make any headlines as 5 of the 9 justices were nominated by Republican Presidents according to your logic.
There you go again. I stand corrected.
Doh! The Obama Administration gets another big issue W-R-O-N-G!
Nah, couldn’t have seen that coming… /sarc.
Gladzkravtz
There you go again, ‘broad’, another tempting word.
As opposed to a socialist health care plan which forces everyone to buy health care and punishes them if they don’t.
I guess the ruling was “unexpected,” too.
Kagan said during her confirmation process that she would not recuse herself from HCR cases as she played no substantive role in the development of any of the lawsuits currently pending.
RSS,
Well, I see other problems you might not recognize.
In general, if you push at the back of one side while at the same time handicapping the other side, you will have tremendous imbalance, regardless of which area of concern you might be trying to address.
As to how such a development would relate to healthcare services, if you make it too easy for people to access healthcare and too difficult for insurance companies to provide it, you will at the very least, cause a shortage of services. Without the regular balancing mechanism of price and profit, such needing to be free from government interference, you will see those in power assigning the scarce amount of services to selected groups.
I’m not
inferringimplying anything but the fact that lower court rulings on controversial matters are meaningless since they normally get their day in court on the appellate level. The fact that trial judges are political appointees gives the decision even less meaning, especially when the judge rules exactly how you would expect. Barring a death or retirement of one of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court, the healthcare mandate will come down to Anthony Kennedy, and its fate is no more decided today than it was yesterday.I’m with AllahPundit.
So, Red State Socialist, we should ignore this?
Chappy’s back – long time no see Chap. Did your ears start to warm after I mentioned you in another thread?
I’ve been on a number of threads the past week or so.
Does this qualify as a ‘BFD”?
Voter sentiment, political pressure and other court decisions will definitely affect the supreme court’s final decision. History has shown this to be true.
47 out of 57 governors. Is that like a majority or something?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Of course, mandating that everyone buy a house would be just around the corner if the libTARDS had their way.
Sigh. If only Liberal Desperation had the same BTU and fungiblity as oil.
We could stop drilling tomorrow and have enough energy for the rest of the century!
The left views the constitution as a work in progress; as a living, breathing document of imprefection that can be improved. They feel they can accomplish changes to the constitution that they deem necessary if they properly educate the right through the use of better messaging.
Thanks Spacy – you owe me a monitor..
Well, that’s what Clinton tried to do. The lenders were forced to give home loans to people that could never repay them. See how well that worked out?
If the DOJ is going to appeal the ruling, the Republicans in the House should deny all funding towards this end.
Should this ruling survive all of the appeals, I would find it poetic justice that the triumvirate of Obama, Reid and Pelosi led the Democrats over the cliff for legislation that was eventually voided.
DANG IT!! They aren’t putting gas in my car, not paying my mortgage and now I’m not getting free health care…. What good is this “hope and change” thing anyway?
Well then, why not do it this way.
First off, I have no idea what percentage an employer pays for the employees health care. With that in mind, say it’s 50%. Because I really don’t know. Second, this is the health care version of the right to choose.
Keep the employers and the government OUT of the business of choosing health care. The employee makes the entire decision. The employer can still offer various plans but the employee can choose whatever they want. Even something the employer does not offer. And the employee must pay the percentage that the employer does not pay. So, in the example, both pay 50%. This will force the employee to be more discerning about their choice.
Let’s say a small business has 100 employees. If the employer offers the lowest, cheapest, plan from Acme Health, no one is required to take it. Say 95 of the employees go get the most expensive plan from Acme Health. They like Acme, they like their doctors, they just want better coverage and are willing to pay for it. Now the employer has a choice. He can ignore 95 of his 100 employees or he can offer the best Acme plan at a reduced rate and get some savings. This is pretty much a no brainer.
The other 5 employess choose a Zephyr Health plan. The employer will have to pay a percentage of those as well. Since his membership is low (only 5) he may not get too much of a benefit from having it as a competing plan. Or maybe he can join up with some other small businesses in the area and get a group rate.
This allows the employee to keep their health care. It is completely portable. It cannot be used as a reason for employment or for termination. Everyone gets the health care they want, at the price they can afford. And since they have to pay for a pretty good chunk of it, they are more likely to be better informed about it.
Let’s start a movement to draft Kim Jong Il as the next American president.
If he won, the Freedom Quotient across the USA would at least go up a notch.
Harry reid must be day-dreaming of his affection for the Chinese political system. He and his party could get so much accomplished if only America didn’t have the people to worry about. Recently, when speaking about the leader of China, Reid jealously stated:
“He is a dictator. He can do a lot of things through the form of government they have.”
Finally it is revealed, a positive aspect of ObummerCare consisting of over 2,000 pages:
When it goes up in flames, it will light up the entire Eastern Seaboard!
or not…
Wow. Is the American Left stupid, or what?
You’ve got balls jrgdds!!!!
And i was so looking forward to having my medical marijuana and value-rite vodka covered under obamacare.
Errah Justice Vinson with clear thinking, reason and a constitution was able to figure this one out. His next task should be to tell us why we have Interstate Highways in Hawaii.
“Do these Spanish royals make my arse look big?”
wait a sec, I thought “unconstituional” meant anything a Leftist didn’t want?
since all the bigmouth Leftists and Marxists love to use that perjorative aimlessly to bash anyone who criticizes them, when they haven’t even read the Constitution. they would shrivel up and die like vampires in the sun if they had to read the Constitution. clear limits on govt are poison to Leftists, just as Leftists are Poison to America.
The Constitution is our only defense against Marxists like Obama and his thug regime. and they Hate It with every ounce of their being. it’s the only thing keeping them from total communist control over our lives.
I don’t see anything wrong on the link.
The FLOTUS has the requisite number of expansion joints in her skirt.
Truly a good one, Teddy! I’ll drink to that.
It hurts to admit, but Pelosi was right:
They passed it, and Vinson found out what was in it.
by the way, we need to get this Judge Vinson into some kind of security protection immediately, because you know the violent Leftist hate-crazies (the actual incivility mob, you know) will be out to get him any way possible. he should be given round the clock protection, and not by the Feds either. I hope this Judge and his family remain safe.
tell him if he gets an offer of protection from the Dept of (Socialist) Justice, probably best to turn that one down.
Obama said that domestic terrorist Bill Ayers was just a guy in the neighborhood. People never lie for their own ends do they?
Sot! How can we get Federal funding for the Long Beach-Honolulu Bridge-Tunnel without being part of the Interstate Highway System?
How do you think we drive to Alaska?
Just finished reading the decision in its entirety. Some highlights:
The judges reasoning is damning, all the more so because it is clear throughout the opinion that he takes the defendants‘ side of the argument as his basis for ‘analysis rather than the plaintiffs’, and he still ends up destroying their positions.
Chappy, from a purely professional position do you think that it would truly be possible for Kagan, who admits attending meetings, to truly have never discussed anything of substance? Seeing as she said that she will not recuse herself (though I wonder if it will come up again)it is a moot point, but I just do not see how it is that nothing of importance was discussed about the litigation within that 6 week window when the lawsuit was filed until she was nominated. I suppose it is possible that the administration had purposely left her out of any consultations as they thought she may become a nominee. Just wondering what your thoughts are on this.
She said she attended one meeting, singular, in Florida. Do I believe that she stayed out of it? Probably. If for no other reason than everyone knew this was coming down the pike and would end up in the SC. With dozens of other potential nominees, I can’t see the admin risking nominating Kagan if they thought in any way she would have to recuse herself from what will be one of the most significant cases (both politically, practically and precedentially) in a generation.
This wasn’t altruism on the part of the judge. This is a summary judgment order, not an opinion. The judge is basically required to accept the defendant’s side. It also, from a procedural standpoint, means this is much more likely to be overturned on appeal.
I have talking to God to give this judge the input on what he decided. Gosh, it seems God did. I know this is not even over with. bho and team are going to full force to tell us all’the judge acted stupidly’, we Ameicans’ have no clue what is good for you, bho is about as good as any president as has ever been here, and last you all are ‘racists’!
L
What you just wrote is, in legalese, what I believe is known as a “non sequitur.”
In lay terms, I believe it’s called “hoping against hope.”
Just a comment before I have a chance to read all of yours…
I know that people have been praying very hard for our country and God is apparently hearing us. But we have a long way to go and need to keep the prayers going up there. NOW would be a good time to thank God for his mercy on a badly broken country. If we, His People, will pray, He will heal our land. (We know who is doing the praying and it certainly isn’t the regressive side!)
happyscrapper#84,
Those who have faith do pray. Boy things are not all that wonderful in the world, but He has things in His hands. Please, if you are inclined, pray for Israel, the Apple of Gods eye. This tiny land has almost every country, it seems even ours with bho, against them.
L
I could not care less about this decusion or the ultimate opinion of this Appeals Court, or any lower court decision, for that matter. It is all posturing. Ultimately Kennedy’s is the only opinion that will matter.
I agree, and I do pray for Israel! They are in the middle of a real mess and it is getting worse by the hour. My ex-sister-in-law and her husband are going to Israel in two weeks. Apparently the trip has been planned for some time. I think they are making a mistake, but they are going! Scary.
Use a truck? But only if you can put up with really bad roads. Turn right at Diamond Head?
————————————–
So does slamming and embarrasing justices at a SOTU address.
Mr. President….this a big F**king deal!!!
So, if you were a self employed business owner, you’d be “fine” paying 15K a year for family coverage? You believe most families are fine with paying that much out of their own pockets?
***
HI 123UPNORTH–#64. Yes–JRGDDS is like a good umpire–he just calls ‘em like he sees ‘em!
***
Fortunately–I have a really wide screen monitor which does real justice to the beauteous Moochelle’s “caboose”.
***
She should ban all side and rear camera shots. She looks much nicer head on–when she does one of her rare happy smiles.
***
John Bibb
***
Chap’s statement says everything you need to know about how the juducial process has been corrupted to the point that it is virtually worthless.
We need to assume the worse and keep pressuring for full repeal. We need to do what we need to do, including mass civil disobedience.
We need to put Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and yes Kennedy in a safe house somewhere. Cuban-style authoritarian government-dictated health control is so important to obama and the left that they will probably try to kill one of the smart SC justices.
I believe obama will order the assassination of one or more of the Supreme Court justices.
My thoughts exactly! This is too big an issue for Obama’s Chicago thugs to leave to chance. These SC judges must be protected! Pretty sad when a citizen of this Country thinks the POTUS might order a “hit” on someone, but I think it is a possibility. Perhaps Obama wouldn’t do it himself. One of his flunkys would do it. But I don’t believe he would intervene.
You gotta LOVE Ann Coulter! She just told Hannity that if Government can mandate you must buy health insurance, then we can mandate that everyone must buy a gun and a Bible! Love it!
The White House occupant is, and the 111th Congress was:
“odd”, “overreaching”
Yes, especially since there is less crime in places where more citizens own guns. And studies have shown that people who are more religious are healthier, happier, and live longer on average than others. So mandating guns and Bibles could be justified as a means to promote the general welfare.
This MUST be made to stick.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
It’s a good thing Justice Vinson’s decision came out after the lame duck session was over. Otherwise, the Democrat majority could have gotten around his objection by making all healthcare a right that cannot be denied on the basis of race, sex, citizenship, or ability to pay.
If Democrats had done it that way, no one would have to buy health insurance, but our taxes would go sky high to pay for the new healthcare entitlement. The government would then be in control and would decide how much doctors make and how to ration care when there are fewer doctors. That is what the democrats really want anyway.
Thankfully, the Republican majority in the house have already been sworn in. Long live Speaker Boehner!
So, whether we descend into the depths of socialist hell or whether we have our freedom to choose is dependent on one person’s opinion. This is very scary.
Meanwhile the WH and the left are trying to spin this as just another minor ruling by a Republican appointed judge that doesn’t mean anything in the big scheme of things.
Makes me wonder if Urkel and his Kool-aid drinkers might seriously consider ignoring this ruling like they ignore other rulings.
They damn well better be, and should have been prior to this judge finally giving them a spine.
26 states, the elected officials in those states and the citizens are nothing to scoff at.
Obviously this will eventually go all the way to the Supreme Court, but the scholarly ruling by Judge Vinson was well crafted and a real boost to overturning the law. Actually, you now have to say it HAS been overturned, in its entirety, and only a successful series of appeals can save it, absent Congressional action.
Well, that is simply not true at all. If, for whatever crazy reason, Vinson’s ruling was not appealed, it’s affect would go no further than his district. And if the Appellate Court were to hear it and affirm his decision and the SC decided not to take the case, it would only apply to that Circuit.
And finally, what makes you assume that the court will take a case where the procedural posture is “unconstitutional”? There have been at least two cases where a federal judge has ruled it constitutional. One of those could easily make be granted cert rather than this or the Virginia case.