Well looks like Obamacare may be thrown out in the courts

Post Reply New Topic

Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled Monday for the state's claim that the requirement for people to purchase health care exceeds the power of Congress under the Constitution's Commerce Clause or under the General Welfare Clause.

"It is not the effect on individuals that is presently at issue -- it is the authority of Congress to compel anyone to purchase health insurance," wrote Hudson, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush.

"Every application of Commerce Clause power found to be constitutionally sound by the Supreme Court involved some form of action, transaction or deed placed in motion by an individual or legal entity. The constitutional viability of the minimum essential coverage provision in this case turns on whether or not a person's decision to refuse to purchase health care insurance is such an activity," he wrote.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12 ... -care-law/

Well looks like Obamacare may be thrown out entirely once the Supreme Court deals with it, because there is no "severability clause" (the Democrats forgot about it and didn't realize it wasn't in the bill cause they didn't read what they wrote).

Prediction: No, it won't.

Barring Supreme Court Justices that are conservative retiring or/dieing under suspicious circumstances it is highly likely they will rule as the judge in this article did.

Federal judge Henry E. Hudson's ownership of a stake worth between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform -- the very law against which he ruled today -- raises some ethics questions for some of the nation's top judicial ethics experts. It isn't that Hudson's decision would have necessarily been influenced by his ownership in the company, given his established track record as a judicial conservative. But his ownership stake does create, at the very least, a perception problem for Hudson that could affect the case.

"Is Judge Hudson's status as a shareholder coincidence or causation? Probably the former, but the optics aren't good," James J. Sample, an associate professor at Hofstra Law School, told TPM. "Federal judges are required by statute to disqualify themselves from hearing a case whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It's a hyper-protective rule and for good reason. At the very least, his continued financial interest in Campaign Solutions undermines the perceived legitimacy of his decision."

The rules are pretty straightforward: if a judge is invested in a company that is a litigant in a case, he or she can't be involved. But in cases where a company owned by a judge has an interest in the outcome of a case but is not a direct litigant, the lines get much more murky.

"The company is not technically a direct party in the case," Sample told TPM. But he noted the judge is "treading very close to the line."

"You would certainly want to ask whether he has an interest in an organization that's devoted to an outcome that he has control over," Professor Charles Gardner Geyh of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law told TPM. "That would certainly be the inquiry I would want to undertake."

"The more general analysis is whether the judge's impartiality might be questioned. The most I'm willing to commit to is that it certainly raises concerns in my mind that one might fairly explore," Geyh said.

Hudson has held a stake in Campaign Solutions at least since 2003, according to financial disclosure reports. Every year since 2003, Hudson's stake has had a "gross value" of between $15,001 and $50,000 dollars, but his yearly income from his investment has increased. Before 2006, he reported that he earned less that $1,000 dollars. In 2006 and 2007, he earned between $1,001 and $2,500 dollars. Since 2008, his yearly income from his partial ownership of Campaign Solutions has been between $5,001 and $15,000 dollars.

A Campaign Solutions representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Late Update: So guess who ends up to be a client of Campaign Solutions? None other than Cuccinelli himself. He racked up $9,000 in website and credit card processing expenses in 2010, as noted in this story.

If the rest of this bill goes into effect without the healthcare mandate, it will cause ballooning healthcare costs as people will be able to wait until they get sick to buy "insurance".

And if that happens, people will probably see it as a market failure and demand a fully socialized option.

@ skafather84

You haven't bothered to post your source, and I have a suspicion as to why. Cause you know your source probably isn't credible or I'd backtrack the source to something tied to some liberal activist group.

@mcg

The dems forgot a key clause, the whole thing can be thrown out if the US Supreme Court makes the same decision as this judge.

Because I like to make you paranoid.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... stions.php


It doesn't matter. Anything that's contrary to what you believe to be fact is unreliable.

I'm not being paranoid I'm basing my premise off your track record.



Far Left website TPM Muckraker took the offical walk of shame today and admitted that one of their unhinged bloggers was arrested for firebombing Congressman Russ Carnahan’s office. The suspected firebomber blogs at TPM under the name “Ripper McCord.”
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2 ... irebomber/

You mean that TPM Muckraker site?

The TPMMuckraker blog has been sanctimoniously blasting Bobby Jindal since he delivered the Republican party's rebuttal to President Obama, much like every other liberal blogger. But TPM went further than simply posting fifty-seven stories complaining that volcano research really is economic stimulus because otherwise a dashing vulcanologist may have an insufficient budget to convince small town mayors to get out of dodge before they get buried in a mine shaft, or something. No, TPM went farther. Based on, apparently, some anonymous DailyKos bloggers and a cursory search of news articles, they were comfortable blasting across the blogosphere the salacious story that Bobby Jindal lied about his Katrina anecdote.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/02/27 ... by-jindal/

I didn't even have to try to find stuff about them, you are using a far-left smear site to smear the judge and yeah I'm saying you knew your source wasn't reputable putting it mildly.

Talking Points Memo (or TPM) is a web-based political journalism organization created and run by Josh Marshall. It debuted on November 12, 2000. It covers a wide range of topics from a "politically left perspective,"[2] including U.S. foreign policy, domestic politics (especially at the federal level) and domestic policy. By 2007, TPM received an average 400,000 page views every weekday

http://www.ask.com/wiki/TPMmuckraker

The four blogs (Talking Points Memo, TPMCafe, TPMMuckraker and TPMDC) are published by TPM Media LLC
http://www.ask.com/wiki/TPMmuckraker

You may as well have used Keith Olberman as your source.



Whatever, come back when you actually have a valid source.

Whatever.

The market "solution" has already failed. It is true that if the mandate gets tossed, the funding will not exist to support a ban on pre-existing conditions.

Bring on universal healthcare! (No sarcasm - I'm serious)

N-O.

The fact is, the Judge was right in his ruling if he hadn't ruled that way he would have been saying government's powers are unlimited and the Constitution means nothing.

What we have now is not the market solution. The tax-exemption of employer provided healthcare has created a third-party payer system where producers have no incentive to provide efficient health care. Switching to a fully socialized system will not do anything to reduce the price of healthcare, it will just shift the already too high costs around.

Inuyasha—are you or are you not aware that the individual mandate was originally a Republican proposal?

It's highly disturbing that a supposedly "far-left" Democratic president can't even implement Republican polcies without facing rightwing opposition. Hell, he can't even get a renewal of one of Reagan's treaties because the GOP lunatics suddenly think it's too liberal.

Honestly, the Ultra-far Right has almost no memory. Years ago they were talking about how Slick Willie was off killing Vince Fostner, now they're yammering about how he could cooperate with Republicans "unlike the Communist Nazi Socialist Fema Camper" Obama. I wonder when they'll get it through their heads that individual Democratic Presidents aren't the AntiChrist (never, I know).

I bet the next Democratic President the US has will be thought of as "so much worse than Obama, that guy from the good-ol' days of nice Democrats" by the Rancid Right.

We're starting the move to the camps and showers. Not sure whether it'll be Punch or Judy who makes the big move but it's already starting.