Obamacare Unconstitutional.......

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

So says a VA judge.

[Franzl]

All that really matters is what Anthony Kennedy thinks

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

All that really matters is what Anthony Kennedy thinks

In the end, absolutely correct.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Should you be happy that so much power is concentrated in the hands of a totally unaccountable official who also happens to be a bit of a flake?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since other judges have ruled otherwise, about all this does is make inevitable that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide the case, not that there was much likelihood it wouldn't.  All these early cases will likely do is provide ammunition for the arguments the other eight justices will make to Kennedy.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

Meh, all this doesn't matter until the Supreme Court gets their hands on it. It will probably be a pretty predictable vote with Kennedy as the swing vote once again.

[Landslide Lyndon]

ACTIVIST JUDGES ALERT!!!

[Oakvale]

Heh, apparently the judge owns a Republican consulting firm that's worked for such noble patriots as Michelle Bachmann.

Activist judges ahoy!

[angus]

Should you be happy that so much power is concentrated in the hands of a totally unaccountable official who also happens to be a bit of a flake?

We should not.  

But in fairness, he's not a flake.  A flake is more like Caligula.  Or Jim Traficant.  Or a planned date who stands you up.  Kennedy's reliably pragmatic, and reliability is the antithesis of flaky.

[Mjh]

Judge Henry Hudson: Big time Freedom Fighter.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Ezra Klein's take on why Hudson's ruling isn't actually bad news for HCR (and answers Torie's question).

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/is_the_hudson_ruling_good_news.html

...

The real danger to health-care reform is not that the individual mandate will be struck down by the courts. That'd be a problem, but there are a variety of ways to restructure the individual mandate such that it doesn't penalize anyone for deciding not to do something (which is the core of the conservative's legal argument against the provision). Here's one suggestion from Paul Starr, for instance. The danger is that, in striking down the individual mandate, the court would also strike down the rest of the bill. In fact, that's exactly what the plaintiff has asked Hudson to do.

Hudson pointedly refused. "The Court will sever only Section 1501 [the individual mandate] and directly-dependent provisions which make specific reference to 1501." That last clause has made a lot of pro-reform legal analysts very happy. Go to the text of the health-care law and run a search for "1501." It appears exactly twice in the bill: In the table of contents, and in the title of the section. There do not appear to be other sections that make "specific reference" to the provision, even if you could argue that they are "directly dependent" on the provision. The attachment of the "specific reference" language appears to sharply limit the scope of the court's action.

...

[Keystone Phil]

Awesome

[Sbane]

Ezra Klein's take on why Hudson's ruling isn't actually bad news for HCR (and answers Torie's question).

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/is_the_hudson_ruling_good_news.html

...

The real danger to health-care reform is not that the individual mandate will be struck down by the courts. That'd be a problem, but there are a variety of ways to restructure the individual mandate such that it doesn't penalize anyone for deciding not to do something (which is the core of the conservative's legal argument against the provision). Here's one suggestion from Paul Starr, for instance. The danger is that, in striking down the individual mandate, the court would also strike down the rest of the bill. In fact, that's exactly what the plaintiff has asked Hudson to do.

Hudson pointedly refused. "The Court will sever only Section 1501 [the individual mandate] and directly-dependent provisions which make specific reference to 1501." That last clause has made a lot of pro-reform legal analysts very happy. Go to the text of the health-care law and run a search for "1501." It appears exactly twice in the bill: In the table of contents, and in the title of the section. There do not appear to be other sections that make "specific reference" to the provision, even if you could argue that they are "directly dependent" on the provision. The attachment of the "specific reference" language appears to sharply limit the scope of the court's action.

...

This is a very good ruling indeed. The individual mandate always seemed unconstitutional, even if extremely necessary. The good news is that it isn't too hard to make people get health insurance without forcing them to (although I suppose stupid conservatives still wouldn't get it, but that's not exactly a bad thing. Evolution at work and all).

[7,052,770]

Remember, judicial activism is only bad when you disagree with the ruling.

[Sbane]

Remember, judicial activism is only bad when you disagree with the ruling.

That's a given. The court has been more left leaning since the 1960's. Now it is more right leaning. So it is only reasonable that Democrats will now start caring about judicial activism while Republicans will suddenly forget all about it.

[beneficii]

Ezra Klein's take on why Hudson's ruling isn't actually bad news for HCR (and answers Torie's question).

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/is_the_hudson_ruling_good_news.html

...

The real danger to health-care reform is not that the individual mandate will be struck down by the courts. That'd be a problem, but there are a variety of ways to restructure the individual mandate such that it doesn't penalize anyone for deciding not to do something (which is the core of the conservative's legal argument against the provision). Here's one suggestion from Paul Starr, for instance. The danger is that, in striking down the individual mandate, the court would also strike down the rest of the bill. In fact, that's exactly what the plaintiff has asked Hudson to do.

Hudson pointedly refused. "The Court will sever only Section 1501 [the individual mandate] and directly-dependent provisions which make specific reference to 1501." That last clause has made a lot of pro-reform legal analysts very happy. Go to the text of the health-care law and run a search for "1501." It appears exactly twice in the bill: In the table of contents, and in the title of the section. There do not appear to be other sections that make "specific reference" to the provision, even if you could argue that they are "directly dependent" on the provision. The attachment of the "specific reference" language appears to sharply limit the scope of the court's action.

...

This is a very good ruling indeed. The individual mandate always seemed unconstitutional, even if extremely necessary. The good news is that it isn't too hard to make people get health insurance without forcing them to (although I suppose stupid conservatives still wouldn't get it, but that's not exactly a bad thing. Evolution at work and all).

Only problem, it would still effectively sink the other major part of the bill: It is impractical to cover pre-existing conditions without having premiums for everybody covered by pre-existing conditions be paid for all the time.  If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate, but not any other part of the bill, then Congress must act, or else the health insurance industry shuts down in 2014.

[Sbane]

Ezra Klein's take on why Hudson's ruling isn't actually bad news for HCR (and answers Torie's question).

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/is_the_hudson_ruling_good_news.html

...

The real danger to health-care reform is not that the individual mandate will be struck down by the courts. That'd be a problem, but there are a variety of ways to restructure the individual mandate such that it doesn't penalize anyone for deciding not to do something (which is the core of the conservative's legal argument against the provision). Here's one suggestion from Paul Starr, for instance. The danger is that, in striking down the individual mandate, the court would also strike down the rest of the bill. In fact, that's exactly what the plaintiff has asked Hudson to do.

Hudson pointedly refused. "The Court will sever only Section 1501 [the individual mandate] and directly-dependent provisions which make specific reference to 1501." That last clause has made a lot of pro-reform legal analysts very happy. Go to the text of the health-care law and run a search for "1501." It appears exactly twice in the bill: In the table of contents, and in the title of the section. There do not appear to be other sections that make "specific reference" to the provision, even if you could argue that they are "directly dependent" on the provision. The attachment of the "specific reference" language appears to sharply limit the scope of the court's action.

...

This is a very good ruling indeed. The individual mandate always seemed unconstitutional, even if extremely necessary. The good news is that it isn't too hard to make people get health insurance without forcing them to (although I suppose stupid conservatives still wouldn't get it, but that's not exactly a bad thing. Evolution at work and all).

Only problem, it would still effectively sink the other major part of the bill: It is impractical to cover pre-existing conditions without having premiums for everybody covered by pre-existing conditions be paid for all the time.  If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate, but not any other part of the bill, then Congress must act, or else the health insurance industry shuts down in 2014.

I fully understand that, but there are other ways to get people to get health insurance without forcing them. You can easily give people say 6 months to a year to get health insurance. If they don't, instead of making them pay a fee (which might be considered unconstitutional), you just make it basically impossible for them to re-enter the health insurance market. Make them pay everything out of pocket. Only idiots would get hurt by this.

[Free Palestine]

HORAY!

And, defending the Constitution is not "judicial activism."

[Oakvale]

HORAY!

And, defending the Constitution is not "judicial activism."

*banging head off wall*

[DrScholl]

More proof that right-wingers are the biggest judicial activists anywhere. Not sure what "HORAY" means (Hooray maybe?", but the first two letters are a very good description of what this judge is to the special interest.

[J. J.]

Saying that there isn't a clear constitutional mandate and that interstate commerce rarely applies to medical care isn't judicial activism.

Just honesty and sanity.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

"Long active in Republican politics, he was appointed U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Virginia in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan."

He was appointed by W to the federal bench. This ruling is only surprising in its leniency towards the bill.

[Mr.Phips]

The mandate is what is being called unconstitutional.  If the Supreme Court decides the same, the bill will simply stand without the mandate. 

[J. J.]

"Long active in Republican politics, he was appointed U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Virginia in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan."

He was appointed by W to the federal bench. This ruling is only surprising in its leniency towards the bill.

Well, a majority of SCOTUS was appointed by Republican presidents.

Judges are interesting, as in the case of Earl Warren; their background is submerged in a sea of black robes.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Sollars v. Reid -dismissed 4/2/10
Taitz v. Obama - dismissed 4/14/10
Archer v. U.S. Senate - dismissed 4/12/10
Heghmann v. Sebelius - dismissed 5/14/10
Mackenzie v. Shaheen - dismissed 5/26/10
Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots v. Sebelius - dismissed 6/2/10
Coalition for Parity Inc. v. Sebelius - dismissed on 6/21/10
U.S. Citizens Association v. OMB - dismissed 8/2/10
Baldwin v. Sebelius – dismissed 8/27/10
Burlsworth v. Holder - dismissed 9/8/10
Schreeve v. Obama - dismissed 11/4/10

So out of 12 legal challenges one succeeded? Not exactly inspiring numbers.