In essence it asks Judge Vinson to provide detail on what the government should do in light of his ruling. (Suite 101) More > …
Posts Tagged ‘Bill McCollum’
Let’s just hope the Supremes hear this case soon, and that Reagan’s 100-year anniversary will have good mojo on the case. What really scares me is the Obama Administration’s unwillingness to follow the will of the judge in the Florida ruling and halt implementation of this act. That should scare everyone. This is an administration that, like the two professors here, clearly thinks it knows what is best for all of us, and has the right to take the law into its own hands. They were even recently ruled in contempt for the New Orleans oil-drilling case! What do the professors feel about this pattern of lawlessness? Should every person that breaks the law get to decide whether they take their punishment? More > …
From the WSJ: “David Rivkin, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the ruling meant the 26 states challenging the law must halt implementation of pieces that apply to states and certain small businesses represented by plaintiffs.
But the Obama administration said it has no to plans to halt implementation of the law. Already, it has mailed rebate checks to seniors with high prescription drug costs, helped set up insurance pools for people with pre-existing medical conditions and required insurers to allow children to stay on their parents’insurance policies until they reach age 26.” At this point and time, the best option is to take this law to the Supreme Court. (Front Page Mag) More > …
Former Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, who began the 26-state lawsuit against ObamaCare last March, talks about why Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan may need to recuse herself from an eventual ObamaCare decision. (YouTube) More > …
Tenth Amendment, states take biggest victory tet in ObamaCare Battle. More > …
Big question is whether judge rules that entire law can be thrown out? (OfficialWire) More > …
By: Ed Hassell
As legal scholars have already noted, Federal Judge Roger Vinson’s 78-page ruling in the major Florida decision that struck down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was not only bold but also extremely well written.
That’s not just because he knew it would be headline news.
Vinson not only wanted his decision to be legally sound, he wanted it to reverberate with the Supreme Court justices who will ultimately decide the case. It’s safe to say most judges at this level do not like being reversed.
One of Vinson’s key findings was that while the individual mandate was clearly “necessary and essential” to the law as drafted, it was not “necessary and essential” to health care reform in general. And he used then-Senator Obama’s own words in his explanation. “Indeed, I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at the time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody by a house,’” Vinson wrote.
He did not see the lawsuit as a battle over health care reform itself, but moreover a Constitutional call to arms. Like many opponents of the law, Judge Vinson thought there was a better way to achieve the reform’s most important goals without turning our country away from a land governed by laws to one governed by men—men who may turn out to be tyrants as certain countries in the Middle East are now showing us.
Followers of this landmark case are already aware that Obama’s televised assertion that the law was not a tax–during the protracted political battle over the legislation–is something his own government lawyers retracted throughout this case. During the oral arguments, Judge Vinson rightly called them on it. Still, federal lawyers have been forced to argue that for all intents and purposes, the fine imposed by not buying insurance is a tax that the government is well within its rights to levy, thanks to their novel interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
With his Florida ruling, Judge Vinson loudly disagreed.
The judge did lazy reporters a favor by pointing them toward other examples that clearly showed the president at odds with the law that now euphemistically bears his name. Here is an actual quote the judge mentions in his ruling from then-Senator Obama during a CNN interview that aired February 5, 2008:
“If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate? I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so.”
President Obama understood the problem he would be facing from the beginning but was persuaded by economists and political insiders who argued early on that the individual mandate was necessary for the law to succeed.
If you want to hear from those early voices—the kind of historic context you won’t see humorously bandied about on political critiques by The Daily Show with Jon Stewart—continue on down the bread crumb path left by Judge Vinson’s ruling and start with Christopher Lee’s revealing Washington Post article, “Simple Question Defines Complex Health Care Debate,” from February 24, 2008. Then you may feel free to wonder aloud what became of this admittedly intellectual president’s memory regarding health care in Massachusetts.In the article, the author asks should the government require Americans to purchase health care insurance? Senator Obama disagrees, arguing that a law “should not force anyone to buy insurance he or she cannot afford.”
Obama sparred with Hilary Clinton repeatedly over the subject of the individual mandate. Looking at the Massachusetts plan, Obama was quoted as saying: “In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can’t afford it, so now they’re worse off than they were … They don’t have health insurance, and they’re paying a fine.”
Oops. And how does that not apply to ObamaCare?
Lee accurately identified the coming problem in his prophetic piece: the big fight over the individual mandate and universal coverage. The Democrats wanted a candidate “to do something big” says a Harvard public opinion expert quoted in the piece. On the other side, the last thing that Republicans wanted was more big government and red tape bureaucracy. The battle lines were drawn early.
Senator Obama understood the folly of the individual mandate. It’s too bad he didn’t listen to his own advice, his own attacks on the health care system in Mitt Romney’s state, which would soon become an eerie predecessor to the ObamaCare monster. If he had kept a level head, it might have saved the taxpayers tons of money and discontent, as the law now looks headed for at least partial, if not outright defeat, in the legal system.
Obama, a former professor of Constitutional law, knew he was headed down the wrong path but did what it took to get votes—just another example of big time politics at odds with intellectual honesty.
On January 31, Judge Vinson called him on it.
ObamaCare411 site to offer live updates on “the most watched health care reform lawsuit” (Official Wire) More > …
Big question is whether judge rules that entire law can be thrown out
|Federal Judge Roger Vinson is expected to rule on the multi-state lawsuit against ObamaCare on Monday, Jan. 31 in Florida. Many observers believe that Judge Vinson, a senior judge appointed President Ronald Reagan, is likely to rule against the individual mandate requirement in the law.
Last December, Vinson said that it would be “a giant leap” for the Supreme Court to accept the Obama Administration’s defense of this central provision.
As to the plaintiffs’ secondary issue, whether the law violates state sovereignty by imposing a huge expansion of Medicaid, the outcome is less certain. Vinson has noted in past hearings that states can opt out of Medicaid, as cash-strapped states like Texas have considered, but plaintiff attorneys for the states argue that is impossible for most.
The biggest question is the issue of severability: Will Vinson be receptive to the argument that the entire health care law should be thrown out should the individual mandate be ruled unconstitutional? If so, his decision would differ from the federal judge in Richmond, Va., who found the mandate unconstitutional but did not rule on the issue of severability.
Something of a clue: In the past, Vinson has said the act was analogous to “a watch with interlocking and interdependent wheels.”
Ever since the November elections, the number of plaintiffs in the lawsuit has swollen to represent over half the states in the country, with 26 state attorneys general involved. Whatever Judge Vinson’s ruling, most everyone agrees that the case will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, where it could become a landmark Constitutional case.
For those interested in following breaking news on the case: The web’s most updated sites regarding all news matters relating to the Affordable Care Act can be found at ObamaCare411 and 21statelawsuit, which will be covering the latest legal announcements with up-to-the-hour postings and commentary.
Using the universal coined phrase for information, ObamaCare411 blog contains the most important, up-to-the-hour news related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as it happens. It is presented in a user-friendly format that includes three primary news columns featuring the latest breaking news, news as it relates to affected groups (families, doctors, workers, etc.), as well a politics watch. Site organizers hope to provide a forum to help contribute to the ongoing national discussion of the Affordable Care Act and, most importantly, to help educate the public to the real costs of the law as written. Anyone with news tips, story ideas or suggestions, may contact the site at email@example.com.
“As new state attorneys general take office in the coming week, newly elect FL AG Pam Bondi, expects an increase in the number of states challenging the law in court.” (Wall Street Journal) More > …