Judge says multi-state anti-HRC lawsuit can proceed
Federal Judge Roger Vinson has just announced that the anti-HRC lawsuit mounted by 20 states will be allowed to proceed.
An excellent decision, IMHO:
The judge questioned whether the administration was correct in arguing that all Americans are active participants in the health care system regardless of whether they choose to have health insurance and are therefore subject to penalties under the government’s authority to regulate commerce.
This case is potentially huge, and whatever the verdict is, it will almost undoubtedly end up in the Supreme Court, where it rightly belongs.
Blecch, I have a terrible feeling about that whole mess. What if Obama packs the court and they rule in favor of HCR? What if they do anyway, not packed? If Obama etc has shown such willingness to govern outside the Constitution, wouldn’t he have the same feelings about governing outside of the Supreme Court?
It goes back to what we were just talking about, with regard to the beginning of Nazi Germany. Their supreme court and constitution could not stop the train. What if ours can’t either?
What, the states are suing to get rid of Hillary Rodham Clinton? Great idea! After they succeed there, they can take on Heath Care Reform, too!
Hooray!
Hopefully it will join McDonald v. Chicago in establishing tea party constitutionalism.
No, it doesn’t belong in the Supreme Court, it doesn’t belong in *any* court because it should never have been made a law.
Personally I’ll be surprised if this is even a close one when it makes it to the SCOTUS. I wouldn’t be shocked to see all the lower courts just pass the buck and uphold it (too many do not like to rock the boat and it will certainly rock this administration). Further even the liberal judges generally can see implications when they are this strong – if simply your ability to participate in a market means you are participating this means congress can regulate/mandate *anything* and it will *all* be “constitutional”.
Even the ones that have voted to uphold bad law from previous commerce clauses have had lots of talk about not reading too much into it, that those cases were the outer limits of what can be done – this is MUCH MUCH MUCH further. Nor has Obama really ingratiated himself – I don’t think very many of the “feel the magic” if they ever even did (his comments at his State of the Union Address made sure of that one).
anna: We don’t know yet what the President will do about this. But we have to keep trying, don’t we?
Personally, I’m glad that Judge Vinson didn’t take the easy way out, and announce his decision after November 2. (And I hope Republican candidates make good use of this.)
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Here’s a direct link to the decision:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM152_101014_order.html
It’s well worth reading for many reasons, including footnote 9, in the section concluding that the mandate is not a tax:
“`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'”
If normal intelligence and the plain meaning of the words of the US Constitution ruled the day, I’d never lose a minute of sleep over the matter.
I’d assume the Supremes would do their duty and strike this law down asap.
However, my nightmares involving the US Supreme Court always seem to revolve around that travesty of a case called Kelo……
IMO there IS a way to influence the courts, and that is to make the backlash and citizen outrage over this law so clear that the court would feel it was under far more pressure from the citizenry to do the right thing than it would ever anticipate from the other branches of the government to uphold that law.
Remember how sensitive the court was regarding any questions in election matters after the Florida debacle in 2000?
They know their rulings carry weight only because the citizenry accepts their legitimacy. If they hand down rulings that blatantly undermine that legitimacy, they know it diminishes their perceived authority.
They can be influenced, and I think it’s pretty clear that this law is wildly unpopular with the people.