[Twenty-seven] states/state attorneys general file lawsuit on health care bill

[Soul Crusher]

Judges sharply challenge healthcare law
LA Times ^ | June 8, 2011 | David G. Savage

________________________ ________________________ ____


A top Obama administration lawyer defending last year's healthcare law ran into skeptical questions Wednesday from three federal judges here, who suggested they may be ready to declare all or part of the law unconstitutional.

And in an ominous sign for the administration, the judges opened the arguments by saying they knew of no case in American history where the courts had upheld the government's power to force someone to buy a product.

"I can't find any case like this," said Chief Judge Joel Dubina of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. "If we uphold this, are there any limits" on the power of the federal government? he asked.

Judge Stanley Marcus appeared to agree. "I can't find any case" in the past where the courts upheld "telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market…. Is there anything that suggests Congress can do this?"


(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...

[Kazan]

"I can't find any case like this," said Chief Judge Joel Dubina of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. "If we uphold this, are there any limits" on the power of the federal government? he asked.

Judge Stanley Marcus appeared to agree. "I can't find any case" in the past where the courts upheld "telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market…. Is there anything that suggests Congress can do this?"


Finally, the court needs to slap the federal government back to reality with this power grab

[Soul Crusher]

I cant wait till the day I get to rub this pofs bill in every obots face as being declared unconstitutional.   

[Kazan]

I cant wait till the day I get to rub this pofs bill in every obots face as being declared unconstitutional.   

They need to order that this piece of crap stop being implemented until a decision is rendered. We saw the last judge didn't specifically say that they had to stop, even though being unconstitutional would seem to imply that.

[Soul Crusher]

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR.
AND LEE A. CASEY


When we first articulated ObamaCare's fundamental constitutional flaws in these pages nearly two years ago, our objections were met with derision by the law's defenders. Those who have been following the unfolding litigation are no longer laughing.

Three U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are poised to render decisions on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the coming months. Despite hundreds of briefing pages and numerous oral arguments, government lawyers have yet to address the law's most basic constitutional infirmity. Only a "general police power"—the right to enact laws alleged to be in the public interest without regard to interstate commerce or some other federal legislative authority—can support the law's centerpiece, the "individual mandate" that all Americans purchase health insurance. The Constitution denies that power to the federal government, reserving it to the states alone.

In enacting the individual mandate, Congress purported to rely on its power to regulate interstate commerce and, in the process, reach individuals who are already engaged in that commerce. But the individual mandate does not regulate commerce, interstate or otherwise. It simply decrees that all Americans, unless specially exempted, must have a congressionally prescribed level of health-insurance coverage regardless of any economic activity in which they may be engaged. Requiring individuals to act simply because they exist is the defining aspect of the general police power that Congress lacks.

The government's lawyers, recognizing this fundamental constitutional reality, have tried to rewrite the law so that it can withstand judicial scrutiny. They have claimed that the individual mandate is a tax, despite common sense, judicial precedent, and numerous statements to the contrary by the law's sponsors and President Obama. They have also argued that ObamaCare does not actually impose a mandate on inactive citizens, but rather regulates how individuals will pay for their health care. As Solicitor General Neal Katyal recently put it, the mandate is "about failure to pay, not failure to buy." This is plainly wrong. The law requires that everyone have health insurance—without regard to whether or how they buy or pay for medical services.

Congress, of course, could regulate how actual, not hypothetical, health care is bought or paid for. There are also ways in which Congress could, constitutionally, achieve the near-universal health-care coverage it sought by passing ObamaCare. Most directly, it could raise taxes to pay for universal coverage. But this option would carry far higher political costs than the scheme Congress actually adopted, which effectively shifts the costs (and ultimately the inevitable need to raise taxes) to the states.

That's why ObamaCare is so constitutionally pernicious. Our Framers adopted a dual-sovereignty architecture, dividing powers between the national government and the states. As Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy explained in United States v. Lopez (1995), this division achieves two goals. It protects individual liberty, and it ensures that voters can identify which level of government is responsible for what policies so that a proper accounting can be made at the ballot box.

Consistent with the fundamental principle that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers, more than 220 years of case law requires that exercises of the commerce power be grounded in a meaningful, judicially enforceable, limiting principle. ObamaCare's defenders can't articulate such a principle.

They began with the claim that there was no difference between activity and inactivity, since both involved decisions, and thus could be reached under the commerce power. Having largely abandoned this unwinnable argument, they now claim that the mandate does not really compel individuals to buy insurance, but merely regulates their inevitable future health-care consumption.

But because the future consumption of nearly all existing goods and services is inevitable across the entire population, this argument means that Americans can then be compelled to purchase an infinite variety of goods and services chosen by Washington. Far from limiting what government can do, this is the ultimate enabling principle. Even Soviet apparatchiks, who told producers what to make, did not dare tell people what to buy.

ObamaCare's defenders have sought to manufacture another limiting principle. They claim that health care is unique because everyone will use medical services, health-care costs can be financially ruinous for uninsured individuals, and others will then have to pick up the slack by subsidizing consumers who do not pay their medical bills. Yet any number of national markets, including the housing market, share these same characteristics.

Thus the administration's position comes to this: What is one unconstitutional law, more or less, among friends? Health care is simply more important than any other issue. And Congress can be trusted to act responsibly, imposing purchase mandates only when they are essential. That's why Congress can mandate medical insurance but would never require Americans to buy broccoli. The courts have always found such promises constitutionally insufficient.

The courts will also see through claims by ObamaCare supporters that the law's opponents are trying to "re-litigate" the New Deal. The New Deal is not at issue. Both before and after the Supreme Court accepted the constitutionality of federal economic regulations in the late 1930s, it has consistently stated that there are limits on federal power and, in particular, on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. It has upheld those limits in a number of cases, making clear that federal regulation cannot reach into areas too remote from legitimate federal concerns.


If ObamaCare is to be upheld, then the Supreme Court will have to abandon these precedents, along with the plain meaning of the Constitution. It will also have to concede that our federal system is in fact not one of divided authority between federal and state governments, but one in which the states merely act as Washington's administrative enforcers. There is every reason to believe the court would never entertain such a notion.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey served in the Justice Department in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. They represent 26 states in one of the lawsuits challenging ObamaCare's constitutionality.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303714704576383443814815916.html



________________________ ____

Cant wait till obama gets his ass handed to him on this. 

[Dos Equis]

Federal appeals court rules health care reform bill is constitutional
From Bill Mears, CNN
June 29, 2011

Washington (CNN) -- The political and legal future of the sweeping health care reform bill received a big boost Wednesday after a federal appeals court in Cincinnati ruled in favor of the Obama administration and Congress, concluding a key provision in the landmark legislation was constitutional.

The "individual mandate" requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties -- was challenged in federal courts by a large number of individuals and groups, who said people should not be forced to purchase a product like medical coverage. A partially divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit disagreed.

"We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause," said the three-judge panel on Wednesday, in a 64-page opinion.

Federal court expresses concern over health care reform law

The opinion is the first of three rulings that will emerge from federal appeals courts around the country in the coming weeks over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The issue is almost certain to eventually reach the Supreme Court, perhaps by year's end. More than two dozen other legal challenges to the law are floating in lower federal courts.

Toobin: Fight over health care law will end up at Supreme Court

The health care reform act was passed by the Democratic Congress last year, and championed by President Barack Obama.

A key part of the ruling was written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a President George W. Bush appointee and considered a conservative on the court. He said the health care field is different from other streams of "commerce."

"Regulating how citizens pay for what they already receive (health care), never quite know when they will need, and in the case of severe illnesses or emergencies generally will not be able to afford, has few (if any) parallels in modern life. Not every intrusive law is an unconstitutionally intrusive law," he said. "Time assuredly will bring to light the policy strengths and weaknesses of using the individual mandate as part of this national legislation, allowing the peoples' political representatives, rather than their judges, to have the primary say over its utility."

Sutton added, "The government has the better of the arguments." He was supported by Judge Boyce Martin -- who is considered a liberal and was named to the bench by President Jimmy Carter. He turned aside the argument by opponents of the law that economic "inactivity" cannot be regulated by the national legislature.

"Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act's larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance," he said. "The provision regulates active participation in the health care market, and in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity."

Judge James Graham -- a Reagan appointee -- agreed with most of the opinion but expressed some concern that Congress could go too far in other economic arenas, under limits imposed by the Constitution's commerce and spending clauses.

"If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress's Commerce Clause authority would be. What aspect of human activity would escape federal power?" he asked. "Such a power feels very much like the general police power that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States and the people. A structural shift of that magnitude can be accomplished legitimately only through constitutional amendment."

Various state and private challenges to the law are also before federal appeals courts in Atlanta and Richmond, Virginia.

Another challenged provision mandates expansion of Medicaid, the low-income health program administered by the states.

Supreme Court won't jump into health care fray -- for now

The high court could be asked this fall to take formal jurisdiction over one or more health care appeals, and it could decide the matter perhaps by 2012, a presidential election year.

The issue could ultimately turn on whether forgoing medical insurance or coverage represents economic "activity," an area long considered proper for congressional oversight in interstate commerce. Opponents, including more than two dozen states, argue it is not.

The Justice Department countered that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not "choose" to participate in the health care market. Federal officials cite 2008 figures of $43 billion in uncompensated costs from the millions of uninsured people who receive health services, costs that are shifted to insurance companies and passed on to consumers.

CNN poll: Majority oppose individual mandate

In the case before the 6th Circuit, four individual plaintiffs from Michigan say the government has no business interfering with their individual health care decisions.

The court's ruling would technically affect only those states covered by the 6th Circuit: Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. But it would help set the tone for other courts considering similar issues.

The Obama administration applauded the ruling.

"We will continue to vigorously defend the health care reform statute in any litigation challenging it," said a Justice Department statement. "Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed. We believe these challenges to health reform will also fail."

One pressing concern is whether parts of the law already in effect can continue to be enforced. Those sections currently being administered include small business tax credits, federal grants and consumer protection measures. The federal government wants to know whether these provisions can continue while the issue is under appeal, particularly in the 28 states that have filed suit.

Other questions that could prompt a high court review include:

-- If one provision of the law is found unconstitutional, does the entire act become invalidated?

-- Should employers be forced to provide some level of health insurance to their workers?

-- Can religious, moral, and other objections to the law be considered?

-- Do states and private groups have "standing," or legal authority to bring their claims, or is congressional taxing authority ultimately exempt from such lawsuits?

Oklahoma and a range of private groups have also filed separate legal challenges that are concurrently working their way through federal courts around the country.

The Affordable Care Act has about 450 components, placing a number of new or revised regulations on states, private insurance companies, employers and individuals.

Federal judges in Florida and Virginia in recent months found parts of the law unconstitutional, while colleagues in Michigan and Virginia upheld the provisions.

Federal judge tosses out health care reform act

Health care reform, a top Democratic priority since the Truman administration, was passed by the last Congress in a series of virtually party-line votes. Obama signed the act into law in March 2010. The law is widely considered to be the signature legislative accomplishment of the president's first two years in office.

Among other things, the measure was designed to help millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans receive adequate and affordable health care through a series of government-imposed mandates and subsidies. The federal government stated in court briefs that 45 million Americans last year were without health insurance, roughly 15 percent of the country's population.

Analysis: Health care repeal will cost $230 billion

Critics have equated the measure to socialized medicine, fearing a bloated government bureaucracy will result in higher taxes and diminished health care services. About two dozen challenges have been filed in federal courts nationwide.

Opponents derisively labeled the measure "Obamacare." Republican leaders, who captured the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, have vowed to overturn or severely trim the law.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/29/health.care.appeal/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[Soul Crusher]

Absurd ruling. 

[Kazan]

Absurd ruling. 

That is putting it mildly, I don't know what fucking constitution they are reading but it isn't the US constitution. This BS never ceases to amaze me. The commerce clause has been posted here before and gives the congress no such power. Fucking ridiculous.

[Dos Equis]

Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law
 1:18pm EDT


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/12/us-usa-healthcare-idUSTRE77B4J320110812




WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.

(Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky and James Vicini, editing by Will Dunham)



________________________ ________________________ ___



Great news!!!!  


FUBO!!!!

 

[Dos Equis]

I bet they try and push this past the election, while encouraging the release of the Osama movie before the election. 

White House Faces Political Dilemma on Health Law Challenge
By Jim Angle
Published August 19, 2011
FoxNews.com

AP2011

President Obama wipes his brow as he speaks during a town hall meeting at Lower Hannah's Bend Park in Cannon Falls, Minn., Monday, Aug. 15, 2011.

The Obama administration now faces a key legal and political dilemma -- what to do about the recent decision from a federal appeals court that said the new law's mandate that every uninsured American must buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

Many political analysts think the White House will try to delay Supreme Court consideration as long as possible.

"They definitely don't want to see it go to the Supreme Court until after the elections,” said Kirsten Powers, a former Democratic operative and a Fox News analyst. “So my expectation is they would do whatever they can to slow walk this so that this does not get to the Supreme Court where possibly the individual mandate could be struck down which would be very damaging for the administration."

There is no doubt the health care law is headed for the Supreme Court -- the only question is when. The recent decision by a panel of judges from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta is only the broadest challenge to the law, brought by 26 states and the nation’s largest association of small business owners. But there are multiple, conflicting appellate court rulings and huge stakes for the case.

"This is the most important constitutional cases of the decade, " said Greg Katsas, one of many lawyers challenging the new law. "You have two conflicting opinions, and you have one Court of Appeals striking down a federal statute. Either of those makes the case appropriate for Supreme Court review."

The 11th Circuit only invalidated the individual mandate, arguing Congress did not have the power to force people to buy insurance or any other product. As far as the rest of the health care law is concerned, its ruling only said Congress did have the power to create the other provisions.

But would they work without the individual mandate? Neither the president nor the critics think it would and that's one reason the administration may want to avoid an early Supreme Court decision.

"Regardless of whether the courts ultimately strike down the entire law, if they strike down the individual mandate as unconstitutional, the reform doesn't hang together and ultimately Congress will have to rework it in its entirety," said former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin.

The president seems to agree, arguing on the campaign trail in Minnesota this week that the new law could not work without the individual mandate.

"If an insurance company has to take you, has to insure you, even if you're sick," the president explained, "but you don't have an individual mandate, then what would everybody do? They would wait until they get sick, and then you'd buy health insurance, right?"

"You can't not have health insurance," the president continued, "then go to the emergency room, and each of us, who've done the responsible thing and have health insurance, suddenly we now have to pay the premiums for you. That's not fair."

So one might think the president has some interest in getting a quick decision from the Supreme Court.

But most analysts believe the White House will try to delay a decision as long as it can-- first, by asking the full appeals court to rehear the case, which could postpone a final decision there for months. Then, the administration could take the maximum time to request Supreme Court consideration, hoping to push a final decision past the 2012 election.

"It's not a politically-winning issue for them," Powers said. "All anybody cares about right now are jobs and economic growth and they don’t want to be reminded about health care."

So the administration's strategy may be to postpone final judgment until after the election, and save the president potential embarrassment, but one of the lawyers challenging the law says the country deserves to know sooner rather than later.

"People have to invest millions if not billions of dollars in revamping the Medicaid program, re-designing health insurance programs, saving for the mandate,” said Katsas said. “All of those sorts of decisions have to be made now by people who need to know what the rules are."

So an early decision would prevent money from being squandered if the law were eventually struck down after all that spending. And that is a judgment the president may be reluctant to face while running for reelection.

"That would be a major blow in the middle of a campaign season where they would have to then ... re-litigate the whole healthcare debate in a way that they just don’t want to," Powers said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/19/white-house-faces-political-dilemma-on-health-law-challenge/

[Soul Crusher]

Looking for Limits (Obamacare precedent would give U.S. government unlimited power over population)
Reason ^ | 2011-08-17 | Jacob Sullum
Posted on August 19, 2011 8:01:32 PM EDT by rabscuttle385

The power to mandate health insurance is the power to mandate almost anything.

(snip)

Under our system of government....Congress has only those powers that are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, with the rest "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"....An all-encompassing Commerce Clause that authorizes any mandate, restriction, or prohibition aimed at behavior that might affect interstate commerce (subject to specific limits such as those imposed by the Bill of Rights) is plainly inconsistent with this federal system.

he Obama administration therefore needs to explain why its constitutional rationale for the health insurance mandate—that the failure to obtain medical coverage, in the aggregate, has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce—does not amount to such an open-ended license...

(snip)

...if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the unprecedented policy of mandating purchases in the name of regulating interstate commerce, future Congresses could decide there are sound reasons to make people buy other forms of insurance (to prevent cost shifting), exercise equipment (to reduce health care costs), double-pane windows (to conserve energy), or American cars (to stimulate the economy and support domestic manufacturers).

"Every day," the 11th Circuit observed, "Americans decide what products to buy, where to invest or save, and how to pay for future contingencies such as their retirement, their children's education, and their health care. The government contends that embedded in the Commerce Clause is the power to override these ordinary decisions and redirect those funds to other purposes."

Given the potential for wide-ranging controls over heretofore private decisions, you can see why this debate is not simply about arcane legal doctrines or arbitrary distinctions between state and federal powers. "While these structural limitations are often discussed in terms of federalism," the appeals court noted, "their ultimate goal is the protection of individual liberty."

(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Obamacare is already on its deathbed
Washington Examiner ^ | Mon Aug 22, 2011 | Conn Carroll
Posted on August 22, 2011 5:42:40 AM EDT by markomalley

When the United States Supreme Court examines the individual-mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act sometime next spring, it will undoubtedly give great weight to the text of the United States Constitution and relevant Commerce Clause case law.

But, whether or not any justice will ever admit it, some on the court may be hesitant to invalidate the new law because of the significant strain it would place on an already divided Congress.

These worries are misplaced. Obamacare is already a very sick patient whose symptoms will inevitably require major action by Congress. A Supreme Court decision invalidating some, or all, of the law would only hasten the inevitable.

The signs that Obamacare was never long for this world began to appear soon after the bill became law last spring. Reports began leaking about large employers securing waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Seems many firms were considering dropping their insurance plans since their policies didn't meet the new law's minimum annual benefit requirements. Almost 1,500 waivers have been granted since then, covering more than 3.2 million Americans.

Obamacare's next blow came in December when Congress needed money to prevent Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors from falling by almost 30 percent.

Earlier versions of Obamacare had included a permanent fix for the doctor reimbursement issue, but the provision was stricken from the final bill because Democrats were unwilling to reduce spending elsewhere in the federal budget in order to pay for it.

The $19 billion Congress used to pay for the one-year fix in December came from increased penalties on consumers whose eligibility for Obamacare health insurance subsidies decreases midyear because of income fluctuations.

Then in May this year, Congress increased the Obamacare health exchange subsidy penalties by another $19 billion. This time Congress had to pay for the repeal of the law's 1099 provision, which would have required small-business owners to file tax-reporting documents for almost all of their vendors.

Fast-forward to Aug. 12, when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found Obamacare's individual mandate unconstitutional. That same day, the Treasury Department issued new regulations rendering millions of Americans ineligible for health insurance subsidies based on a technical definition of "affordable."

Judy Solomon of the liberal Center for Budget Priorities think tank said, "The proposed rule would mean that many spouses and dependents who are uninsured today because they can't afford family coverage would remain uninsured in 2014."

Treasury promised to mitigate the problem by exempting affected families from the law's insurance mandate. But while these families might not have to pay penalties for violating the mandate, they still have to cope with an insurance market where premiums will be much higher because of Obamacare's other insurance regulations.

Congress will have to find some way to help these families. Congress must also find a long-term solution to the Medicare reimbursement problem. Not to mention the impending backlash from the millions of Americans who will be forced to pay $38 billion in health exchange fines just because they managed to get a raise.

And we haven't even touched the inevitable controversy and litigation that will come when the Independent Payment Advisory Board begins making cuts to Medicare and refusing to reimburse providers for selected procedures.

Obamacare has never been popular. It debuted with a barely 50 percent favorable rating, which sunk to the low 40s by the time it passed, and stands in the high 30s today.

The law is unmanageable, unsustainable, unpopular and, according to the 11th Circuit, unconstitutional. If the justices on the Supreme Court have any sense of mercy, they will officially put the law out of its misery and invalidate the entire law. 

[Dos Equis]

Appeals Court Dismisses Virginia's Challenge to Obama Health Care Law
Published September 08, 2011
FoxNews.com

A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected Virginia's challenge to President Obama's health care law, saying in a ruling that the state doesn't have a right to bring a lawsuit.

The unanimous decision from the three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a lower court's decision to declare the law unconstitutional and is the second appellate court ruling in favor of the government's right to require individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

But the court on Thursday stopped short of ruling whether the individual mandate in the health care law is constitutional; it strictly examined Virginia's right to sue.

The court also dismissed a second lawsuit from Liberty University for the same reason.

The Supreme Court will likely have the final say on the health care law after more than 30 lawsuits were filed and contradictory rulings were issued from appellate courts in other parts of the country. Last month, an appeals court in Atlanta ruled against the law, saying the provision to buy health care insurance is unconstitutional. But an appeals court in Cincinnati has upheld the law.

Virginia filed its lawsuit in March 2010, the same day that Obama signed the legislation. The following day, the state passed its own law, known as the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act (VHCFA), declaring that individuals cannot be forced to buy health insurance and sued on that basis.

But the court ruled Thursday that the VHCFA does not create the kind of conflict that allows for a challenge in federal court.

"The individual mandate in the health care law does not affect Virginia's ability to enforce VHCFA," the court opined. "Rather, the Constitution itself withholds from Virginia the power to enforce VHCFA against the federal government."

All three judges on the Virginia panel were appointed by Democratic presidents -- two by Obama and one by Bill Clinton.

White House senior adviser Stephanie Cutter hailed the decision as "another victory for the Affordable Care Act and the tens of millions of Americans already benefiting from this landmark law."
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli vowed to appeal the ruling.

"Obviously, we are disappointed in the ruling," he said. "Our disappointment not only stems from the fact that the court ruled against us, but also that the court did not even reach the merits on the key question of Virginia's lawsuit -- whether Congress has a power never before recognized in American history: the power to force one citizen to purchase a good or service from another citizen."

Stephen Presser, a law professor at Northwestern University, called the ruling a "highly technical decision."

"This decision might well be questionable, but the court did note that important constitutional issues were involved, and even the court conceded that those issues should be resolved in an appropriate forum," he said.

"This is a further indication that the United States Supreme Court should soon resolve this issue, now that both the district courts and the court of appeals have issued contradictory decisions both on the standing and substantive issues," he said.

Elizabeth Wydra, the chief counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, said that Thursday's decision is a "clear indication" that the challenges from Virginia and Liberty University to the law were a "flawed vehicle for debating this important law."

"The procedural obstacles that the plaintiffs tried to hurdle in bringing these cases in the first place show their challenges to be far more about politics than constitutional law," she said.
Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute said the ruling doesn't affect any other case and should only speed up the Supreme Court's consideration of the case.

"All of the constitutional issues attending the individual mandate have now been exhaustively ruled upon by three federal appellate courts in four separate cases," Shapiro said. "While the D.C. Circuit will hear argument in yet another suit later this month, there's no reason for the Supreme Court to delay its review.

"As President Obama unveils yet another plant to stimulate job creation, it's time to finally put an end to the uncertainty over the fate of his most economically damaging piece of legislation."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/08/appeals-court-dismisses-virginias-challenge-to-obamacare/

[Soul Crusher]

Obama appointed judges - what a surprise! 

[tu_holmes]

Obama appointed judges - what a surprise! 

How do you know this?

[Soul Crusher]

How do you know this?

I read the articles on this.   3 were appointed by the black plague Obama.

[Dos Equis]

I read the articles on this.   3 were appointed by the black plague Obama.

Article says two by Obama, one by Clinton:

"All three judges on the Virginia panel were appointed by Democratic presidents -- two by Obama and one by Bill Clinton."

[Soul Crusher]

Article says two by Obama, one by Clinton:

"All three judges on the Virginia panel were appointed by Democratic presidents -- two by Obama and one by Bill Clinton."

My mistake, as if it makes a difference.  Libs always try to expand state power over the citizen.

[tu_holmes]

My mistake, as if it makes a difference.  Libs always try to expand state power over the citizen.

Seriously... this is a Lib thing? Come on... You know the Cons do the exact same thing.

Name ONE President in the past 30 years who has shrunk state power?

[Soul Crusher]

Seriously... this is a Lib thing? Come on... You know the Cons do the exact same thing.

Name ONE President in the past 30 years who has shrunk state power?

not on economic issues like this.

[tu_holmes]

not on economic issues like this.

It's all economic... because it's always about "money".

[Soul Crusher]

It's all economic... because it's always about "money".

Demo Judges are the ones upholding the mandate. 

[tu_holmes]

Demo Judges are the ones upholding the mandate. 

I think they are shitty for doing so, but is it any worse than a Repub judge automatically saying how evil it is?

I don't personally agree with it, but I do understand that every single Republican Judge can't think it's completely horrible... There has to be some party lines there.

[Soul Crusher]

I think they are shitty for doing so, but is it any worse than a Repub judge automatically saying how evil it is?

I don't personally agree with it, but I do understand that every single Republican Judge can't think it's completely horrible... There has to be some party lines there.

I wish it were not that way.  The idea that the govt can FORCE you to buy a private product is so obscene to me it's not funny.

[dario73]

Even these judges did not declare the law constitutional. They ruled that Virginia did not have a right to sue the Federal government. But, on the issue of the constitutionality of Obamacare they didn't even attempt to address the issue.

From the article:

But the court on Thursday stopped short of ruling whether the individual mandate in the health care law is constitutional; it strictly examined Virginia's right to sue.


Stephen Presser, a law professor at Northwestern University, called the ruling a "highly technical decision."

"This decision might well be questionable, but the court did note that important constitutional issues were involved, and even the court conceded that those issues should be resolved in an appropriate forum," he said.

"This is a further indication that the United States Supreme Court should soon resolve this issue, now that both the district courts and the court of appeals have issued contradictory decisions both on the standing and substantive issues," he said.

Even these judges realize that there is a constitutional problem with obamacare. Government can not force anyone to buy a product. That is a fact. Based on that, I don't know how the Supreme Court would even rule in favor of this measure, unless politics has finally destroyed the objectivity of the court system.