Fed judge rules health insurance reform unconstitutional

@Setanta,

Quote:

i believe the appropriate phrase is "legislating from the bench."

Legislation from the bench normally refers to judges getting on their high horse and trying to force social change in violation of the constitution, in this case and hopefully many more to follow we have judges voiding the legislative and executive branches attempy at conspiring to violate the constitution by way of grabbing power that they are not entitled to have. Do you see the difference?

1 Reply

No, that's just your snotty, whiney conservative interpretation of the expression. Piss in your panties all you want, the term is used by both liberals and conservatives to descibe situations just like this. It's always a case of whose ox has been gored.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

It's always a case of whose ox has been gored

BS, it is about who has allegiance to the Constitution and who does not. Those who legislate from the bench do not. Those judges who shut down the Legislative and executive branches attempts to grab power in violation of the constitution do.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

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.

He correctly ruled that it's unconstitutional.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

You can whine to your heart's content, but all you are doing is attempting to slant the meaning to align it with your personal, preferred brand of political bigotry. For example, in this case, it is entirely possible that higher authority may not agree that this is too broad an application of the commerce clause.

Whether or not, a description of legislating from the bench is always a case of whose ox is gored.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

It's not like I just got the right to a legal opinion, but at least I did read Judge Hudson's complete text: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/docs/Hudson_ruling.pdf?hpid=topnews and he seems to have carefully cited legal precedent, especially at the first paragraph on page 39:

Quote:

...the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law....

Seems like the "legislating from the bench" criticism doesn't apply to his severability definition. But "fully operative as a law" still says nothing about fully operative as actuarial calculus - on which topic I do know something. This Act can't survive financially after that particular provision is struck out.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

As usual, you are not paying much attention. Failures ART asked what the term is for such a situation. In fact, he was just joking around. I supplied that term. I have not actually stated that this decision is legislating from the bench, i just used it as an example when Rapist Boy was whining to the effect that the only examples of legislating from the bench involve what he would characterize as liberal decisions.

I don't have a dog in the fight. I could not possibly care less if this is characterized as legislating from the bench.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

There's a general discussion going on and other posters here have also addressed the financial angle. I agree with the judge that basing this "mandate" on interstate commerce is absurd, not least because health insurance cannot be freely bought across state lines. Legislation from the bench is irrelevant.

1 Reply

So who gives a **** if that's your opinion? Are you now the thread gestapo? Do you think you have a right to tell anyone else what they can discuss? I can only agree with the many, many members here who address you as bitch.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Now that's a conclusive legal argument Laughing

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Do you think that the appeals court will be bypassed altogether? Judge Hudson's decision says nothing on that point.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

It certainly is conclusive that you see yourself as the thead gestapo. Too bad for you that you can't control theads the way you would like to.

0 Replies

There is one obvious solution to the problem this activist judge is causing (which is where I hope we are heading anyway).

Single Payer

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

not least because health insurance cannot be freely bought across state lines

But health insurance CAN be used across state lines. And health care can be as well. I thought this bill was about health care but it seems you are arguing it is only about health insurance. Shouldn't it be called ObamaInsurance then instead of Obamacare?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Single Payer

Let's all pray that never happens!

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Let's all pray that never happens!

And who would answer our prayers?

Would we all pray to some central authority who is responsible for providing all benefits? Or, would we each pray to some private deity that we contract with to provide differing levels of benefits based on what we give to them.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

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.

Thoughts on how the ruling will fall???

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Who cares!

As long as we don't go to a single payer system it's all good.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

From what I understand, the mandate requiring people to buy insurance is what will help pay for parts of the Bill of what most people want, like coverage for pre-existing conditions. Take that away, and it may be that there will be a higher demand for universal health care by most voters.

1 Reply

@revelette,

Don't believe it for a minute.
All money brought in buy the illegal and unconstitutional mandate in Obamacare will be spent on 'other' political concerns.

Our government has a spending problem, we don't need to throw more of our money at this problem.

0 Replies

Fed judge rules health insurance reform unconstitutional

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know