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?
Are you seriously saying an Appellate court could affirm his ruling, and the SC would not take that up allowing citizens to be unequally treated?
Realistically, it wouldn’t happen. Theoretically, it can.
Here’s Medicaid “care” for you: Indiana recently sent letters to Medicaid residents in nursing homes that, as of February 1, if they leave the facility for ANY length of time (a single day) to receive care at another facility (hospital), their bed will be held for them ONLY IF THEY PAY OUT-OF-POCKET. Previously, Medicaid would pay for a bed-hold for up to 14 days.
Yes indeed-our republican-constitutional liberties hang by a single vote–fascism is but a heartbeat away.
===
Let your sidearm be like American Express:
Don’t Leave home without it.
The House of Obama is calling this “activism”?!
Pot. Calling. Kettle.
bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
I wonder if BHO will be on the side of the constitution?
Probably not, he and his “friends” — liberals&communists are against our constitution.
He may have lied when he took the oath of office.
I think what you meant to say is that one of the marionette’s string-pullers might order/arrange it.
The cipher himself is an ineffectual, empty suit….
That has been the case for decades….
I might add to “worthless”, destructive of American society/culture.
Absolutely.
Agreed.
Featured T-Shirts at the BarackObama.com store:
(“BFD” refers to Joe Biden saying this is a “Big F***ing Deal”)
I can’t wait for Tea Party T-shirts that say:
Amazing, a judge with that rare commodity “common sense” came up with a ruling that helped round up all the stray RINO’s. We owe this judge our gratitude.
I can assume the only available shirt color is brown.
The “Commerce Clause” and “General Welfare Clause” have been catch-all excuses for every egregious legislative aggression over the last 75 years. It’s about time this drunken crime spree is hamstrung, hopefully for good.
Breaking News: Chuck Schumer says this Judge’s ruling is moot because
the judiciary is not one of the three branches of our Government!
What two cases?
Was that a query to me re: judges finding it constitutional?
There was a case in Western District Court of Virginia and the Eastern District court of Michigan.
Both of those have as much precedential weight as this decision or the one that was issued in Eastern District of Virginia.
Which is to say, almost none at all.
Michigan case
Virginia case
Heh.
“Are you serious? That’s not a serious question.” Nancy Pelosi, on being asked if Obamcare was Constitutional.
Yes, we are serious.
Obamacare is unConstitutional.
(So is Obama)
Of course if that came from Palin, the Left would be once again trumpeting how stupid she is. But Schumer is a good-ole boy.
Heh.
I haven’t touched a weapon since my Army days, and no way would I do so now. I think this is just as wrong as requiring me to buy Health Insurance.
It matters not. Obama will ignore the decision, as he did the one on the gulf drilling ban, and full steam ahead with this and all of his agenda until he is actually stopped. He will also remain in office until he can be proven ineligible and actually be removed, highly unlikely.
In the meantime the GOP must continue to move ahead with repeal of Obamacare and fast.
And Obama will certainly, at this point, only be removed from office in defeat in 2012.
Well, the Left does treat the Judiciary like that whenever it rules against them, so I can understand why he would make such a statement.
Obama: “How many divisions does that judge have?”
It will now become abundantly clear, if it wasn’t after the drilling ban, that the left only bothers to acknowledge court decisions when they agree with them. They will continue to implement Obamacare as if the ruling never happened and dare the judge to try to do something about it.
Uh, yeah, Hawkeye54, like you said.
On February 1st, 2011 at 12:20 pm, Mister P said:
That’s actually their point… follow the HotAir link to the actual story…
Rush was just saying that some people are investigating Judge Vinson for anything they can find one him. True to form for bho and team! bho, team, and the d’s will probably not enforce the judges ruling. They ignored the judge’s ruling on the gulf oil spill.
Fox news has a poll on this ruling by the judge if you would want to give your input.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/01/health-care-law-suspended-supreme-court-weighs/
L
On February 1st, 2011 at 1:11 pm, letget said:
A la what they did to Joe the Plumber…
The politics of personal destruction…
What the leftist Dems do best, alas, since they find it difficult to win in politics otherwise.
DU is reporting that Vinson is a political hack with an axe to grind. And he hates kittens.
The libs/progressives have used the commerce clause and the “promote the general welfare” line to mean all sorts of things that can’t co-exist. The commerce clause can’t be used to prevent the sale of insurance across state lines and to force people to purchase health insurance at the same time. Neither stance is about making commerce “regular”.
Every single legislator who voted for this bill violated their oath to the Constitution. Either they don’t know what is allowed by the Constitution or they don’t care that they disregarded it shows that they are not qualified to continue representing the public.
So are those waivers now invalid?
It was funny once!
Better than that, they’re unnecessary. The law is invalid.
Good grief! Chappy has a closet full of axes to grind and I am sure he hates all of God’s furry little creatures…
And no doubt you…um… “love” them in that special Piedmont, NC way.
Yes, thank you for the links to the above cases. I understand your professional time is valuable and I appreciate the info.
there you go w/teh kittehs agin