A judge in Virginia on Monday invalidated a key part of the landmark healthcare law that requires individuals to buy health insurance, the first major setback for President Barack Obama on an issue that will likely end up at the Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2002, backed arguments by the state of Virginia that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring that individuals buy health insurance or face a fine.
The decision is the first finding against the law that was passed in March and aimed at overhauling the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system. Judges in other states have rejected other challenges to the law.
Given the number of lawsuits brought, it was only a matter of time before the anti-Obamacare guys found their judge and their ruling. This was always going to end up in front of the Supreme Court anyway as I've been saying for months now.
Silver lining here is that the appeal process to get this case to the highest court in the land just got a swift kick in the ass. Full ruling is here (PDF).
Key excerpts:
"A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts expending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme. The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance -- or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage -- it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."
Funny. Under that logic a whole hell of a lot of federal laws and regulations just became unconstitutional. Still, it was expected. SCOTUS will have the final say.
And remember, the MECP was a Republican idea in the first place.
[UPDATE] Atrios thinks the ruling isn't totally without merit. In a vacuum, no. In practical application, this interpretation of the Commerce Clause is still as silly as it was back in March.
[UPDATE 2] John Cole FTW:
None of this really matters until Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia invent a way to overturn HCR without making a precedent that will hamper future Republican presidents.
[UPDATE 3] Adam Serwer points out just how Scalia will most likely do this.
This is what a ruling upholding the Constitution looks like, unlike the two rulings that went the government's way.
ReplyDeleteThe comedy continues.
ReplyDeleteLet me ask you a question. Should the American people be treated as commerce by the government?
ReplyDeleteLet me ask you a question.
ReplyDeleteHave we forgotten the idea of an insurance mandate has been a staple Republican idea for decades?
How about you answering my question?
ReplyDeleteBesides, the party affiliation of the person proposing it is immaterial; it's just as unconstitutional when a Republican proposes it just as it is when a Democrat does. And if you dig through the links to the NPR piece Benen links to, two of the Republicans who proposed it, Bennett and Bond, are gone and Hatch is going to be primaried because he isn't as conservative as he needs to be. Neither is Grassley, although I don't know when or if he's running again (he idiotically wants to retain the ridiculous ethanol subsidy, which even Gore admits is a failure, as part of the tax deal).
Do I think the American people should be required to buy insurance as a method to lower health care costs?
ReplyDeleteYes. Do I think the way it's being done now is the best idea?
No. But you make a great argument for the public option then if the mandate isn't required.
Do I think the American people should be required to buy insurance as a method to lower health care costs?
ReplyDeleteYes.
Then I take it that you do believe people are nothing more than commerce to be regulated and controlled. Because that is what the mandate does.
But you make a great argument for the public option then if the mandate isn't required.
I somewhat agree, although I'm not convinced the public (government) option is any more constitutional (it might be, but I haven't looked at that enough). But there isn't nearly enough support for it (I'm very much against it), so it's kind of a moot point.
I do think reforms are necessary, so I didn't want to keep to the status quo regarding health care. But the PPACA as it stands now and the public (government) option will make health care a lot worse for the majority of the people. It's worse everywhere it's in place.
We already have some level of government supervision and law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'd rather have the public option over the mandate, although the combination of both would be the most effective in driving costs down.
We already have some level of government supervision and law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but not every aspect of government supervision and law enforcement is a federal matter nor always has to do with the Commerce Clause, which is the point. That government supervision and law enforcement is designed to make sure our rights are to be protected, not usurped.
But there isn't nearly enough support for it (I'm very much against it), so it's kind of a moot point.
ReplyDeletedepends on how you mean that. polling data during the debate had about 56 percent of the public in favor. considering how furiously the GOP (and some conservative democrats) messaged against public option, that's an impressive number. and one of the reasons the current HC bill is less popular than one might expect is because it doesn't include a public option.