A federal judge in Virginia on Tuesday rejected a legal challenge to the healthcare reform law, the second time the law's mandate that people buy insurance has been ruled constitutional.
The lawsuit was brought by Liberty University, which also argued that the law violates the First Amendment by requiring people to buy insurance that could cover abortions.
"I hold that there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals' decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market," ruled U.S. District Judge Norman Moon, a Clinton appointee. "Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care.…
"Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance. As Congress found, the total incidence of these economic decisions has a substantial impact on the national market for health care by collectively shifting billions of dollars on to other market participants and driving up the prices of insurance policies."
Again, all this is headed for the Supreme Court, and it will probably end up resting on the shoulders of Justice Kennedy. These lower court rulings are less important, but we are seeing a pattern now of judges upholding the law as constitutional under the Commerce Clause.
The opponent of health care reform are trying to just shotgun out lawsuits until they find a judge that agrees with them. It's a good short-term strategy, but not a good long-term one. Still, the argument by the right that the provision is "clearly unconstitutional" doesn't appear to be so self-evident.
Posts
10 comments:
Still, the argument by the right that the provision is "clearly unconstitutional" doesn't appear to be so self-evident.
Actually, it is. But it doesn't help when a judge avoids the Constitution in order to make a ruling like this. But I wouldn't expect a liberal Democrat to know what's actually in the Constitution anyway, whether it be a private citizen who is a liberal, a liberal in Congress, a liberal as President, or a liberal judge.
By the way, I read the opinion. This idiot Clinton-appointed "judge" relied on the Wickard and Raich decisions, decisions which have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution, to draw his conclusions. Just so everyone has an understanding of what this means, a commenter at Tom Maguire's states it quite succinctly:
It used to be that government had an obligation to protect the rights of individuals. Now, individuals only have obligations to do what the government tells them to do.
Now when an American is born, they immediately become serfs because that is what the liberals in government wants for them. That is the meaning of serfdom, not the phony definitions used by Marxist-leaning liberals.
IT'S JUDISHAL ACTIVIZM! FOUNDERZ IN TENTS!
Good morning, Steve!
Oh, and double bonus points for nutpicking yourself. Way to start the day strongly, sunshine!
there are 37 comments on that JOM thread and there isn't a single liberal troll among them. just one sober-sided fellow who thinks that the judge was right.
why are there so many stupid and tiresome conservative trolls posting on liberal blogs? blecch. i now know what you guys meant about missing wafflez. this SteveAR guy is a fucking predictable idiot.
just one sober-sided fellow who thinks that the judge was right.
That guy didn't say the "judge"* was right. He said the ruling may have been right based on some professor's political philosophy, one the commenter didn't necessarily support.
Did you read the Obamacare decision? As with the other one that went for the government, it relegates Americans to serfdom. The "judge" says that Americans are nothing more than commerce to be regulated by the federal government. Do you think that is what is in the Constitution? And if so, which Constitution are you looking at, because it certainly isn't the U.S. Constitution.
*I put the word "judge" in quotes because the "decision" is nothing but a reiteration of Democrat talking points, a political statement.
RODE TO SURFDUM! INTILSEXUAL ILLEETIZM!
*headslap*
Holy hell, Steve, you're right! I've been looking at the wrong constitution this entire time! Thank God the Founders could see through time and space, divined that health insurance and advanced medical science would be things that would exist, and specifically spelled them and their legal implications out in the U.S. Constitution. Constitutional Constructionism wins out again, there's no need for any derivative law whatsoever, hooray!
Oh, and thank goodness you added a note explaining the subtle joke in your use of scare quotes this time. I hadn't understood what you had been getting at in your previous comment!
Oh, but why is "decision" in scare quotes? Could you footnote that one for us, too?
I've been looking at the wrong constitution this entire time!
It's good you admitted your mistake.
Thank God the Founders could see through time and space, divined that health insurance and advanced medical science would be things that would exist, and specifically spelled them and their legal implications out in the U.S. Constitution.
Thank God the Founders could see through time and space to write a document to protect our God-given rights against tyranny. It took liberals to misuse that document to abuse those rights. It'll take conservatives to set it right.
Oh, but why is "decision" in scare quotes? Could you footnote that one for us, too?
I explained it already.
BA-ZING! Now we're having fun! And to think, Steve, people were saying you're a joyless trollypants and rampaging ignoramus, but I knew, I always knew we could have some laffs. Take that, all you haters, me and my boy Steve are here to bring the funny, all while making you think.
Post a Comment