Monday, December 13, 2010

Today's Obamacare ruling

WSJ: "Judge Calls Health Law Unconstitutional" The ruling stands on the position that the high-water mark of the Commerce Clause doesn't extend to coercion to purchase a product:

Judge Hudson, of the Eastern District of Virginia, said the individual mandate "would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers."

He added: "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."
And here's some more commentary from the lawyers at Power Line and Legal Insurrection. Also, as noted at Hot Air, Judge Hudson rejected the "now you see me, now you don't" argument that the penalty for failing to carry health insurance falls under the government's power to tax, when this very idea was rejected in both the letter of the law and the debate for passage.

Extra - Good stuff from the Minuteman.

More - Whoops, here's some salt in the wound: "Coinciding with a federal judge’s ruling invalidating a key element of the health care reform law, an ABC News/Washington Post poll finds support for the landmark legislation at a new low – but division on what to do about it." Medic!

And this - Maggie's Farm: "Virginia, Severance & Section 1501."


Anonymous said...

Yay! The Republicans have won the battle of the courts, 1 to 14!

Eric said...

Yay, and the people, 52%-43% oppose!

NLR28 said...

Yippee! Other issues that have the public's mathematical endorsement!

Blocking the sale of violent video games!
Banning same-sex marriage!
Anti-flag-burning laws!
Amnesty on torture!
Local anti-gun laws!
Airport body scanners!

Constitutional, shmonstitutional. This poll goes to 11!

Anonymous said...

68% of the people believe that "angels and demons are active in the world," a far higher percentage than believe in evolution.


Straw Man said...

Wow, did Obama make those issues the focal point of his Administration too?

What a legacy!

Straw M. Thurmond said...

Wanna talk straw men, Straw Man? How about the supposedly game-changing force of a single judicial "victory" amid a slew of "defeats"? Or the impact of moderately negative poll numbers regarding a system that has yet to take effect, in an atmosphere of some misinformation, and which welcomingly include a sizeable minority who oppose the plan because they think it's too tepid?

And yet, we see such professed certainty from a party that very recently boasted about ignoring polls when making big decisions. And a party which certainly doesn't cite the public polling results on Iraq War withdrawal, gay marriage, stem-cell research or DADT as overwhelming political data points.

The straw-free reality? The mandate is staying put, unless 5/9ths of the Supreme Court feel activist enough to ignore their own precedents. And only the mandate is at stake here: the rest of the bill is going nowhere. Insurance companies have already been complying with guaranteed issue requirements at the state level for years without a mandate (e.g. Idaho, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Utah, Massachusetts, Ohio, Rhode Island, Oregon, Maine, Washington, and Vermont). From a practical standpoint, eliminating the mandate will only speed up the adoption of items like back-premium penalties, single payer, and/or the public option. You may say "yay" whenever you're ready.