OLDTIMER Obamacare was rule Unconstitutional again today

[Tam]

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 4:40:00 PM
Pennsylvania judge rules against ObamaCare
BY MICHAEL P. TREMOGLIE

Shapiro
HARRISBURG, Pa. (Legal Newsline) - U.S. District Judge Christopher C. Conner declared that Congress exceeded its authority in passing a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The condition he declared unconstitutional was the mandate requiring American citizens to purchase health insurance.

Could you please provide a list of the three courts you said ruled Obamacare as Contitutional? :?

 

[Anonymous]

Here is 3 of the cases overturned by the Appeals Courts... I believe there are some District Court cases upholding the health care reform bill too- but can't remember the states off the top of my head....

Federal appeals court rules health care reform bill is constitutional



June 29, 2011|From Bill Mears, 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.

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.

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.

Appeals court dismisses Va. suits on health care act
.
By Julian Walker
The Virginian-Pilot
© September 9, 2011
RICHMOND

Two Virginia-based lawsuits that challenge aspects of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care act were tossed Thursday in separate federal appeals court rulings, moving questions of the act's constitutionality closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In one opinion, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned a lower federal court's decision that Congress lacks the authority to require people to obtain health insurance.

But the basis for that appellate decision appears limited - the judges rejected Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's argument that Virginia has legal standing to sue in defense of a state law exempting Virginians from such mandates but did not address many of the underlying legal issues central to the lawsuit.

"Because we hold that Virginia lacks standing, we cannot reach the question of whether the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact the individual mandate," Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote in the court's opinion.

The judges - two are Obama appointees and one was chosen by President Bill Clinton - also reasoned that the state's sovereignty isn't threatened simply because Virginia has a law at odds with a federal law unpopular in some circles.

Accepting Virginia's standing argument, the opinion further noted, could "convert the federal judiciary into a forum for the vindication of a state's generalized grievances about the conduct of government."

It was a disappointing defeat for Cuccinelli, who last year prevailed in the opening round of this fight when U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that Congress exceeded its authority to regulate interstate commerce by adopting the insurance requirement.

Left unresolved by the decision is the key question of whether Congress has "the power to force one citizen to purchase a good or service from another citizen," said Cuccinelli, who plans an appeal to the Supreme Court.

"Contrary to the court's suggestion, this suit has always been about vindicating the power of the Virginia General Assembly to legislate about a subject that has historically been viewed as falling within the areas the Constitution left to the states," he added, emphasizing that states by design function as "constitutional watchdogs."

Thursday's appellate court ruling on the health care act is among several decisions on the subject issued in recent months.

In June, the 6th U.S. Circuit, in Cincinnati, upheld the legal provision requiring people to buy health insurance. Judges in the 11th U.S. Circuit, in Atlanta, ruled the reverse last month, striking down the mandate as unconstitutional. Both were split decisions.

The second Virginia lawsuit was brought by Liberty University. In a 2-1 vote, the appeals court said it lacks jurisdiction to block a tax, meaning it's too early for the Lynchburg-based Christian institution to challenge penalties that haven't been assessed.

"So, essentially, what the court is saying is that you can't file a lawsuit until 2014, when the mandate goes into effect," said Liberty Counsel founder and Chairman Mathew Staver, who plans an appeal to the Supreme Court, from which he anticipates a decision by summer.

Although the court's decision focused on tax issues, Judge James A. Wynn Jr., in a concurring opinion, and Judge Andre M. Davis, in dissent, each wrote that they believe the disputed coverage mandates are within the scope of congressional power.

The Liberty case is one of several that appear destined for the nation's highest court, though it's unclear whether the justices would bundle the cases together, address them individually, or focus on a particular case as a way to resolve the weighty legal issues raised by the various lawsuits.

University of Richmond law Professor Carl Tobias thinks the Florida-based challenge in the 11th Circuit could be the lead case because it's "a better vehicle for the purposes of the Supreme Court," given its broad legal scope and multiple-state roster of plaintiffs.

However it happens, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell - who considers the health care law flawed - is eager for a resolution to the uncertainty caused by contrasting federal court rulings.

"States and businesses continue to expend time and money and languish in uncertainty as they try to come into compliance with a law that may ultimately be ruled unconstitutional," the governor said in a statement, adding that "America needs finality in this case."

 

[Mike]

It will go to SCOTUS. All these other courts are basically just a step in the process.

In the end, the mandate won't pass muster.

Judge James Graham, called the question correctly when he wrote that "the mandate is a novel exercise of Commerce Clause power" and that Congress has never before "required individuals to purchase a good or service." He concluded that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that if this exercise of power is allowed, "it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress's Commerce Clause authority would be." Graham asks rhetorically, "What aspect of human activity would escape federal power?" Only through a constitutional amendment could a "structural shift of that magnitude…be accomplished legitimately."

 

[hopalong]

So oldtimer do you really think it is going to stand up in SCOTUS,, with so many lower courts saying no, I doubt that anyone in their right mind will rule in favor of the plan,, of course you in your infallible legal mind know all the answers.
Aren't you supposed to be standing in for all the real JUDGES in Valley count this week??

Sure are spending a lot of time in ranchers and other sites if so!!!!

Is this how you make your decisions, flip a coin, you flip flop so much i bet it is!!

RESPECT you have none

 

[Anonymous]

I think you may just have seen the direction the SCOTUS will go...
Remember- these Judges do not live in isolation booths- they sit on each others courts, go to seminars, meetings and social events together-- and inevitably discuss the law and world happenings...

Hardline votes may completely support or oppose the Health Care Bill- but in the end I think the swing votes will support it under this type ruling...

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. "

Judge Sutton has been recognized as the intellectual engine behind a conservative movement of the jurisprudence of the Sixth Circuit as the author of many majority en banc opinions representing the Republican-appointed judges.

 

[Faster horses]

You are actually quoting a BUSH appointee in order to defend your position?
:???: :shock:

 

[Anonymous]

You are quoting BUSH in defending your position?
:shock:

No Judge Sutton- who sits on a conservative court of appeals--which has 10 of its 16 Judges that have been appointed by Repubs (Reagan, GHW Bush, and GW Bush)... A Judge that received no naye votes by Repub Senators on his confirmation to the Apellate Court- but was opposed by all but one Dem as being too conservative...

 

[hopalong]

So you are NOT quoting a BUSH appointee?????????? :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
A real piece of work you are oldtimer :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Faster horses]

Hummm. Didn't I just read this in your quotebox, OT?:

~Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a President George W. Bush appointee~


:???:

 

[Anonymous]

So you are NOT quoting a BUSH appointee?????????? :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
A real piece of work you are oldtimer :roll: :roll: :roll:

That is not what she first asked...Yes Sutton was a GW appointee- and from what I can read about him- has been the spokesman for the conservative appointees...

 

[hopalong]

This is what she wrote oldtimer

"""You are actually quoting a BUSH appointee in order to defend your position?"""

and you sidestepped it like you always do, even to the point of editing the actual quote

this is what you posted!

Faster horses wrote:
You are quoting BUSH in defending your position?


Come on oldtimer admit that you screwed up again!!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

"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.

While certain individual parts of the Health Care Bill may be nitpicked- and ruled against--- the key item to whether the bill stands or not will be this-- the individual mandate...
Which is mirrored much after the Romney Massachusetts Health Care individual mandate which has been challenged several times in the courts and has stood up to all challenges...(And it even goes further- providing the option of a public plan..)

It will center entirely on the Commerce Clause- which as states have become more and more intertwined- and communication and transportation methods which includes much more intracountry migrations/occupations (I know many folks that live here-and work in other states-- folks that live in Billings and commute by air to their jobs in Denver) have made the country more interdependent on the nation as a whole- and less on areas or regions - the courts have given a broader scope to...

 

[Anonymous]

This is what she wrote oldtimer

"""You are actually quoting a BUSH appointee in order to defend your position?"""

and you sidestepped it like you always do, even to the point of editing the actual quote

this is what you posted!

Faster horses wrote:
You are quoting BUSH in defending your position?


Come on oldtimer admit that you screwed up again!!!!!

No- the quote in my post is exactly what FH had up--
"You are quoting BUSH in defending your position?"
While I was answering her question she apparently changed it...Ask her...

But no matter- makes no difference on the question of legality of Health Care .... Just your usual nitpicking because you have no idea on the issues or what the grown ups are talking about and would rather just attack the poster and call them names...

 

[hopalong]

The post does not show having been edited oldtimer!!!
If you wanna lie dont lie to the adults

You were asked a question that you have yet failed to answer straight up, and you refer to your self as an adult????? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

The post does not show having been edited oldtimer!!!
If you wanna lie dont lie to the adults

:roll: :roll:

It won't if she corrected/edited it "while" I was typing my answer... Look at the times...

Ask FH...

 

[Faster horses]

Good grief. :?

I didn't like the way it read, so I changed it...I thought
I changed it IMMEDIATELY. I guess not... :roll:

 

[hopalong]

Ok. that still does not answer the question asked

 

[Anonymous]

Thank you Karl Rove!!! :lol: So we have two pages on the constitutionality of the current Health Care/Insurance Reform law-- and I am the only one that has put up an opinion on what will happen or any arguments for that belief.....

The rest are nitpicking posts to change the subject (too uneducated to give a substantiated opion?) -- and/or personal attacks ...

Nobody else has a real argument besides the town clown(s) :???: :lol: - posting under whichever name it can remember it is today :roll:

 

[Lonecowboy]

it will be ruled unconstitutional because it is!

but Tester's two gals will be voting for it I bet.

 

[Anonymous]

it will be ruled unconstitutional because it is!

.

I'm curious on what grounds? We have nationwide individual mandates from FDA- EPA-USDA-FAA-etc., etc because they intercourse with all the states...Because of that we even have a nationwide MANDATE the NCBA argued for and gave us thru the SCOTUS for the Checkoff Beef Board MANDATORY tax on the sale of all cattle..Soon we will have a nationwide MANDATORY cattle ID/tagging system (also supported by good old NCBA/Bush boys for the past 8 years)... All decided under the Commerce Clause..

What is the constitutional issue that says if all those are Constitutionally legal-- you can't mandate everyone under the same Commerce Clause to have a certain level of health care insurance? :???: ....