Fed judge rules health insurance reform unconstitutional

A Virginia federal judge, Henry E. Hudson, ruled today that the portion of the health insurance reform bill passed by congress (sometimes referred to as "Obamacare") that required all citizens to purchase health insurance exceeds congress's power under the Commerce Clause. A copy of the judge's ruling can be found here.

The ruling only applies to Virginia, and the mandatory health insurance portion of the act doesn't even apply right now, so the immediate effects of the ruling are minimal. It is expected that the administration will appeal, and that the supreme court will be eventually rule on all of the various lawsuits brought against the law.

Am I right that the judge ruled the mandate to be Severable? Which is to say, even if the mandate gets struck down, the rest of the law would stand?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Am I right that the judge ruled the mandate to be Severable? Which is to say, even if the mandate gets struck down, the rest of the law would stand?

That's correct. See section VIII of the judge's opinion (pp. 38-40).

joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Am I right that the judge ruled the mandate to be Severable? Which is to say, even if the mandate gets struck down, the rest of the law would stand?

That's correct. See section VIII of the judge's opinion (pp. 38-40).

Pfff, it's a win-win for me, then. No mandate, but the requirements on private insurance staying in place, will only hasten their demise.

Cycloptichorn

Without the mandate in place to fund the program it will be much easier for Republicans to make a case for repeal.

"Hey look the mandate was a sham all along. It never would have covered the cost of the requirements imposed on private insurance and it would only have been a matter of time before they all went out of business.

This actually works to our favor. The requirements remain, the mandate's partial funding is gone and so private insurance will go bust even sooner and then we can put the public option in place well before we have original planned."

What's that phrase that Conservatives like to use about rulings they don't like?

What's that phrase that Conservatives like to use about rulings they don't like? I'd ask one, but their awful hard to find when a ruling goes in their favor.

A
R
T

Ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to resolve the conflict, and many court watchers already expect a characteristically close decision. But what is now clear is that the challenges from dozens of states to the law’s constitutionality can no longer be dismissed as frivolous, as they were earlier this year by some scholars and Democratic partisans.

“All the insiders thought it was a slam dunk,” said Randy E. Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University who supports the health care challenges. “Maybe a slam dunk like weapons of mass destruction were a slam dunk.”

The Supreme Court’s position on the Commerce Clause has evolved through four signature cases over the last 68 years, three of which have been decided since 1995. Two of the opinions — Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 and Gonzales v. Raich in 2005 — established broad federal powers to regulate even personal commercial decisions that, taken in the aggregate, may influence a larger economic outcome.

I was making a joke. Relax.

A
R
T

What's that phrase that Conservatives like to use about rulings they don't like?