Via CNN, which seems a bit apoplectic over this
Judge Roger Vinson, in a 78-page ruling, dismissed the key provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — the so-called “individual mandate†requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face
stiff penalties.“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and
Inequities in our health care system,†Vinson wrote.
Obamacare-zombies to question Judge Vinson’s personal history in 3…2…1….
More: Now that I’m home (late clients), I see that Judge Vinson has ruled the entire ObamaCare bill un-Constitutional. Obviously, this has driven the Left bat guano insane, and, rather than defend their position, they are simply attacking Judge Vinson. Shocker.
Awww…. c’mon Teach….. this deserves a Snoopy “Happy Dance!” ;)
[…] Â Â The Pirates Cove has the usual entertaining […]
Woohoo! Now let’s see how the Supremes deal with it!
Yeah, I know, but, was posting from my iPhone. How about a Calvin and Hobbes dance?
But, Trish, it was simply “judicial activism”, according to the Leftards.
From a “Tea-Party judge”, forsooth!
Funny, I don’t remember the Tea Party being around back when he was seated… But if the Loopy Left says it, hell, it MUST be true!
Yeah, I know, but, was posting from my iPhone. How about a Calvin and Hobbes dance?
Any phone that does not allow the posting of a “happy dance” should be immediately disposed of.
A person has to have standards, you know. ;)
The fact that trial judges are political appointees gives the decision even less meaning, especially when the judge rules exactly how you would expect. Barring a death or retirement of one of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court, the healthcare mandate will come down to Anthony Kennedy, and its fate is no more decided today than it was yesterday.
The fact that trial judges are political appointees…..
Judges are not “political appointees.” Political appointees serve at the will and behest of the executive branch. Federal judges are nominated by the President and then confirmed by they Congress.
…..especially when the judge rules exactly how you would expect.
The rulings carry the same weight no matter who gives them.
and its fate is no more decided today than it was yesterday.
Actually it was. No other court has struck down the entire package due to the severability issue. No other court has put a stay on the implementation of the law.
The main difference in this case is that this case is the one that is most likely to go to the Supreme Court. The number of states that are a party to this, the number of briefs filed and the totality of the ruling makes it more ripe than any other case out there.
The fact of the matter is that the Justice Department argued that Congress could limit freedoms because it wanted to. That argument was killed by this judge. If you actually read the decision, you can tell that the judge found no legal precedent for that argument. In fact, even though other courts have sided with the government, the argument that was put forth was the same. That argument in recent cases has been dismissed by two separate judges. Yet that is the argument that the Justice Department is stuck with. They cannot change course in the middle of the stream.
This will come down to whether the members of the Supreme Court hold to their oath to support and defend the Constitution, or whether they go off on their own.