Obamacare back in court today

[Little-Acorn]

26 states sued to have the unconstitutional Obamacare "mandate" taken off their backs. Federal District Court judge Roger Vinson ruled the mandate was indeed unconstitutional, and then pointed out that the entire law had been deliberately written without a "severability clause" saying that even if one part were thrown out the rest could remain (Obama's favored insurance companies had insisted there be no such clause).

Since there was no such severability provision, Judge Vinson ruled that all of Obamacare was unconstitutional. He then announced he would delay enforcement of is ruling if the Obamanites quickly appealed. After delaying as long as possible, they did.

Today the case will be argued before a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

One more necessary step on the road to getting Obamacare relegated to the dust bin of history with the rest of the Democrats' socialistic agenda.

-------------------------------------------

http://townhall.com/news/politics-e...ma_administration_to_appeal_healthcare_ruling

Obama administration to appeal healthcare ruling

by Matthew Bigg
6/8/2011 | Reuters

ATLANTA (Reuters) - Lawyers for President Barack Obama will on Wednesday seek to stave off the biggest legal challenge yet to healthcare reform, his signature domestic policy achievement.

The administration will present oral arguments as it appeals a ruling by a Florida judge who declared the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, backing claims by 26 U.S. states that are seeking repeal.

A three-judge panel at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta will hear oral arguments by both sides. While a Virginia appeals court heard a similar case in May, this case is significant because of the number of states backing it.

No ruling is expected for months and legal experts expect an appeal to the Supreme Court, regardless of which side wins.

"Opponents of reform claim that the law's individual responsibility provision exceeds Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes 'inactivity.' They are wrong," the White House said on its blog on Tuesday.

Florida District Judge Roger Vinson ruled in January the entire law "must be declared void" because its requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional, but put the ruling on hold pending appeal.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's not looking too good for the Obamanites after yesterday's arguments in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Even the Clinton-appointed judges were asking the govt lawyers whether there would be any limits to Congressional power if they were allowed to force people to buy things; and whether there had ever been any law in the nations history that did so, that was ever upheld in court. Govt lawyers were unable to answer, knowing better than to cite silly non-sequitors about car insurance or comparing Obamacare's mandates and penalties to voluntary programs that people or states could opt out of.

The Obamanites also pulled the long-awaited 180-degree turn about the program's penalties for non-participation. During the months leading up to Congress's voting on the Obamacare bill, they had stressed that the penalties were not taxes - they knew full well that Americsans would reject the program out of hand if it involved new taxes. They wrote the bill carefully to leave out any mention of "taxes", calling them either "fines" or "penalties" throughout the 2,000-page bill. The bill barely squeaked through Congress.

But yesterday, when the judges asked the Obamanites where Congress got the authority to put such huge, radical programs into place, and especially why they felt they could impose these penalties on Americans, they replied that they were not "penalties", but "taxes".

What the judges rule as a result of these arguments, of course, won't matter. The ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court no matter which side it favors. But this provides an interesting hint about how the Supreme Court vote might go, if even the relatively-law-ignoring Clinton appointees were uneasy about the Obamanites' attempts to impose a flagrantly socialistic programs on Americans who thought they were getting something else.

C-Span actually broadcast recorded audio from the arguments last night (anybody know if they aired it live?), and are making it available on their website. Sometimes it's there, sometimes it's "unavailable" - keep checking.

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Court-Hears-Case-on-Obama-Health-Care-Bill/10737422097-1/

 

[Pepper]

Then we'll just have to go back and institute a public option.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I'm all for overhauling the healthcare "system" in this country, but it has to be done in a sensible and definitive way. The abuse has to be reeled in. The ridiculous overcharges have to stop. The pharmaceutical companies need to quit treating their dangerous drugs like boxes of Cracker Jack. There is so much fraud and greed involved, it will take a herculean effort to fix our healthcare system. And, as with anything else, the politicians don't have the courage or integrity to do what needs to be done.

 

[Pepper]

A big part of the problem is that insurance companies aren't in it to help you get well. They are in it to make themselves rich.