Parts of HC Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Posted 31 January 2011 - 08:50 PM
Federal judge says key parts of health care reform unconstitutional
January 31st, 2011
03:01 PM ET
[Updated at 3:41 p.m.] A federal judge in Florida has ruled unconstitutional the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama, setting up what is likely to be a contentious Supreme Court challenge in coming months over the legislation.
Monday's ruling came in the most closely watched of the two dozen challenges to the law. Florida along with 25 states had filed a lawsuit last spring, seeking to dismiss a law critics had labeled "Obamacare."
Judge Roger Vinson, in a 78-page ruling, dismissed the key provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - the so-called "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face
"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and
Inequities in our health care system," Vinson wrote.
"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. At a time
when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled 'The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.' "
Posted 31 January 2011 - 08:57 PM
CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said it is important to note that several federal judges have found the law constitutional.
"This is why we have a United States Supreme Court, to settle when judges disagree with each other," Toobin said.
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="cnn_padb20 cnn_author_info" valign="top">
Posted 31 January 2011 - 08:59 PM
Posted 31 January 2011 - 09:01 PM
Yes. I quoted the whole article, verbatim, as of the time I found it.
I notice the current version is 3:47 pm so it's possible those two sentences were not in when UC quoted the article
Posted 31 January 2011 - 09:05 PM
Posted 31 January 2011 - 09:15 PM
Like the monsanto thread you've been posting in?
Meh. Take it to P&R.
Posted 01 February 2011 - 03:33 PM
This is what was expected from this case, given the wordings of the preliminary rulings by the Reagan appointee.
Apparently the wordings of Obama himself, played a major part in this ruling.
[B]Judge rules against health law, cites Obama
Posted 01 February 2011 - 04:21 PM
For example (FROM THE RULING):
""It is difficult to imagine, that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place."
Ummmm, the problem was taxation without representation, not the taxation.
Of course what Obama said didn't "play a major part" in how he decided.
The whole pinning of this ruling is radical activism and would overturn decades and centuries of settled law. We mandate participation in social security, etc.
On a normal Supreme Court this is a slam dunk of upholding the legislation. With the partisan conservative activists who knows
Posted 01 February 2011 - 04:37 PM
Posted 01 February 2011 - 05:35 PM
Posted 01 February 2011 - 06:45 PM
I'm just glad to hear the mandate is at the forefront of the discussion. I've thought it ridiculous since Day 1.
completely agreed. and it's so ironic that the best explanation of why it's so ludicrous came from obama himself:
"If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house....”
what a joke...
Posted 02 February 2011 - 07:30 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-UGQIkYEBPo" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
Posted 02 February 2011 - 09:04 PM
comments generally bring the lolz, though which comments bring the lolz may vary depending on your perspective
comments really bring the lolz
Posted 03 March 2011 - 08:09 PM
Federal judge stays his ruling against health care law
By Sahil Kapur
Thursday, March 3rd, 2011 -- 2:02 pm
A federal judge on Thursday issued a temporary hold on his recent ruling voiding the health care law, offering the Obama administration one week to appeal.
US District Judge Roger Vinson of Florida ruled on January 31 that the individual mandate was unconstitutional -- and, because the law lacked a severability clause, he ordered the Administration to halt its implementation. The decision came in a lawsuit filed by 26 states asking the courts to declare the measure's individual mandate -- which is scheduled to begin in 2014 -- unconstitutional.
On Thursday, Vinson issued a stay on the ruling, asking the Justice Department to conduct an expedited appellate review and file an appeal within seven days.
"After careful consideration of the factors noted above, and all the arguments set forth in the defendants' motion to clarify, I find that the motion, construed as a motion for stay, should be GRANTED," he said in his decision, obtained by TPM. "However, the stay will be conditioned upon the defendants filing their anticipated appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court."
The Obama administration says it will move forward with the implementing the law, and intends to vigorously fight challenges to its constitutionality.
Vinson was one of two federal judges who ruled against the reforms. Three federal judges have ruled in its favor. The case is widely expected to reach the Supreme Court.
Posted 15 October 2011 - 04:03 PM
Obama administration drops part of healthcare law
The CLASS program to provide long-term-care insurance will not be implemented because it wouldn't be financially sustainable, says the Department of Health and Human Services.
Reporting from Washington