Second Judge buttfucks Obamacare

[Crazy Levi]

I don't know about the rest of my fellow conservatives, but I am just sick to death of these "activist judges!"
-------

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/31/feder ... id=webmail

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

I don't know about the rest of my fellow conservatives, but I am just sick to death of these "activist judges!"
-------

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/31/feder ... id=webmail

An "activist judge" in Con Law is a judge that renders a decision based on an extra-constitutional foundation. Certain provisions of Obamacare violate the Commerce Clause and have been struck down as unconstitutional. That isn't judicial activism. An "activist" judge would have upheld Obamacare even though there is zero constitutional basis to fine people who chose not to participate in a transaction in the private sector .

Wrong again, as usual.

[Crazy Levi]

I don't know about the rest of my fellow conservatives, but I am just sick to death of these "activist judges!"
-------

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/31/feder ... id=webmail

An "activist judge" in Con Law is a judge that renders a decision based on an extra-constitutional foundation. Certain provisions of Obamacare violate the Commerce Clause and have been struck down as unconstitutional. That isn't judicial activism. An "activist" judge would have upheld Obamacare even though there is zero constitutional basis to fine people who chose not to participate in a transaction in the private sector .

Wrong again, as usual.

I don't care.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

You are a fucking goober.

[Crazy Levi]

You are a fucking goober.

No you are.

Burn.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

[Crazy Levi]

Isn't that Gomer?

[WhiteHouseSubsAC]

Wow, a Keith Olbermann fan who doesn't care that he's completely wrong. Shocking.

[cantstopthemusic]

Isn't that Gomer?

It's no surprise that you don't know, dumbshit.

[cantstopthemusic]

I don't know about the rest of my fellow conservatives, but I am just sick to death of these "activist judges!"
-------

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/31/feder ... id=webmail

An "activist judge" in Con Law is a judge that renders a decision based on an extra-constitutional foundation. Certain provisions of Obamacare violate the Commerce Clause and have been struck down as unconstitutional. That isn't judicial activism. An "activist" judge would have upheld Obamacare even though there is zero constitutional basis to fine people who chose not to participate in a transaction in the private sector .

Wrong again, as usual.

I don't care.

Fugmo Jr.

[EvilMadman]

Second Judge buttfucks Obamacare

I prefer to think of it as every American getting a waiver, without all of the fuss of needing to be a member of a corrupt government teachers union.





Wow! This program really was his "baby", and he and Nancy Lugosi pushed so damn hard for it. It's probably going cause him a great deal stress. He might even have a nervous breakdown. Gee, I really hope they televise it.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Second Judge buttfucks Obamacare

I prefer to think of it as every American getting a waiver, without all of the fuss of needing to be a member of a corrupt government teachers union.





Wow! This program really was his "baby", and he and Nancy Lugosi pushed so damn hard for it. It's probably going cause him a great deal stress. He might even have a nervous breakdown. Gee, I really hope they televise it.

Waiver for what?

[EvilMadman]

Waiver for what?

Judicial Watch Sues Health and Human Services to Obtain Documents Regarding Obamacare Waivers

Washington, DC -- January 4, 2011

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 30, 2010, against the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to obtain records regarding the agency’s decision to grant “waivers” to companies and unions seeking to be exempt from requirements of Public Health Services Act Section 2711, President Obama’s healthcare reform law. According to HHS’s own estimate, at least 222 companies and unions have received waivers from the law, commonly known as Obamacare.

With its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, Judicial Watch seeks the following information:

A. All records concerning the decision to grant waivers of the Annual Limits Requirements of PHS Act Section 2711; and

B. All communications between McDonald’s Corp. and HHS concerning Annual Limits Requirements.

The time frame for this request is from March 2010 to the present.

Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on October 7, 2010. HHS was required by law to respond by November 8, 2010. However, to date, HHS has failed to produce any records or to provide a justification for withholding responsive records. Nor has the agency indicated when a response is forthcoming.

In September 2010, McDonald’s corporation announced it would have to eliminate a health insurance program for nearly 30,000 low wage employees due to an Obamacare requirement that 80 to 85% of all insurance premium revenue be spent on patient care. Due to the high administrative costs associated with this type of health coverage program (known as a mini-med plan), McDonald’s insurer indicated it could not possibly meet the Obamacare requirement. HHS provided McDonald’s a one-year waiver concerning the Obamacare mandate and has been deluged with waiver requests from hundreds of other companies and unions since.

The Wall Street Journal deemed the McDonald’s waiver request, “one of the clearest indications that new [Obamacare] rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world.”

President Obama’s healthcare reform law does not specify which companies or unions should receive waivers for its requirements and under what circumstances. Critics of how HHS has chosen to handle these waiver requests highlight the haphazard nature of the approval process and the fact that companies able to secure these coveted Obamacare exemptions are given an unfair competitive advantage over their rivals.

“The Obama administration is the most secretive in modern times. The Obamacare waiver fiasco is exactly the type of chaos that ensues when the federal government attempts to seize control of a large sector of the private economy. And Kathleen Sebelius’s HHS is willing to violate the Freedom of Information Act to keep Americans in the dark about this Obamacare failure. Secretary Sebelius might want to begin her implementation of Obamacare by obeying federal law regarding public records. The Obama administration’s slapdash handling of these waiver requests has created an enormous potential for political favoritism and influence peddling. The Obama administration must make this waivers completely transparent to the American people so they can be assured, in the least, that the process is not infected by corruption,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

judicialwatch.org

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publius ... onors.html

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Your link had little information about the nature of these waivers, so I checked it out on my own. There are companies/organizations which have received one year exemptions from the requirement to phase out annual coverage limits because they threatened to jack up prices drastically or dump the coverage altogether.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

[KneelandBobDylan]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-l ... ar_we.html

New York University professor Rick Hills describes himself as a "registered Republican and outspoken conservative," but he maintains that the primary argument conservatives use against the mandate -- that it's unconstitutional to regulate economic inactivity by forcing people to buy insurance, as Judge Vinson ruled -- is bunk.

Hills frames the question this way: If the federal government can't tell people they don't have the right to refuse to buy insurance, then why was it okay for the federal government to regulate people's "pacifism," i.e., their refusal to fight in wars? Why is it okay for the government to regulate people's refusal to serve on juries?

"If you can regulate inaction to raise juries, and you can regulate inaction to raise an army, then why isn't there equally an implied power to conscript people to buy insurance, to serve the goal of regulating the interstate insurance market?" Hill asks.

And for conservatives, forcing people to fight their wars is very, very important.

[bane]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-l ... ar_we.html

New York University professor Rick Hills describes himself as a "registered Republican and outspoken conservative," but he maintains that the primary argument conservatives use against the mandate -- that it's unconstitutional to regulate economic inactivity by forcing people to buy insurance, as Judge Vinson ruled -- is bunk.

Hills frames the question this way: If the federal government can't tell people they don't have the right to refuse to buy insurance, then why was it okay for the federal government to regulate people's "pacifism," i.e., their refusal to fight in wars? Why is it okay for the government to regulate people's refusal to serve on juries?

"If you can regulate inaction to raise juries, and you can regulate inaction to raise an army, then why isn't there equally an implied power to conscript people to buy insurance, to serve the goal of regulating the interstate insurance market?" Hill asks.

And for conservatives, forcing people to fight their wars is very, very important.

Interesting take on it. I haven't heard the draft or jury duty arguments on this issue before.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

Hills frames the question this way: If the federal government can't tell people they don't have the right to refuse to buy insurance, then why was it okay for the federal government to regulate people's "pacifism," i.e., their refusal to fight in wars? Why is it okay for the government to regulate people's refusal to serve on juries?

Because juries and the military aren't the private sector. Obamacare creates a mandate to force people to conduct in private transactions. If we had a single payer system and health care was completely run by the government, maybe that argument wouldn't be completely ridiculous.

A secondary constitutional argument would entail juries and armies being specifically mentioned in the constitution. Health care is not.

In other news, NYU Law School has recently hired me to take over Rick Hills professorship.

[cantstopthemusic]

Two words:

Commerce Clause.

[EvilMadman]

Hills frames the question this way: If the federal government can't tell people they don't have the right to refuse to buy insurance, then why was it okay for the federal government to regulate people's "pacifism," i.e., their refusal to fight in wars? Why is it okay for the government to regulate people's refusal to serve on juries?

Because juries and the military aren't the private sector. Obamacare creates a mandate to force people to conduct in private transactions. If we had a single payer system and health care was completely run by the government, maybe that argument wouldn't be completely ridiculous.

A secondary constitutional argument would entail juries and armies being specifically mentioned in the constitution. Health care is not.

In other news, NYU Law School has recently hired me to take over Rick Hills professorship.

What is it about government forcing civilians to purchase something from the private sector, that some people just can't seem to grasp?

Jeez, it's like all the stupid Auto-Insurance arguments.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... -insurance

As for the argument that the health care bill’s individual mandate can be compared to laws requiring auto insurance – an argument President Obama has made – such arguments are invalid:
“Only state governments can require people to get car insurance,” the Conservative Action Project said.

“While the federal government is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the states have a general police power. The police power enables state governments to pass laws for public safety and public health. The federal government has no general police power, and therefore could not require car insurance.”

Moreover, states require auto insurance only as a condition for those people who voluntarily choose to drive on the public roads. “If a person chooses to use public transportation, or use a bicycle instead of a car, or operate a car only on their own property, they are not required to have car insurance, and cannot be penalized for lacking insurance.

cnsnews.com

Two words:

Commerce Clause.

The Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, does not apply to the health care bill, “because there is no interstate commerce when private citizens do not purchase health insurance,” The Conservative Action Project said. The Commerce Clause covers only those matters where citizens engage in voluntary economic activity.

“Government can only regulate economic action; it cannot coerce action on the part of private citizens who do not wish to participate in commerce,” the conservative group said.

cnsnews.com

[KneelandBobDylan]

Reagan's Solicitor General says Health Care Mandate is 'Constitutional'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UGQIkYEBPo


Uh OH!

[EvilMadman]

Reagan's Solicitor General says Health Care Mandate is 'Constitutional'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UGQIkYEBPo


Uh OH!

Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional. Actual Limit to Commerce Clause Found.
Monday, January 31st, 2011 |

From the ruling:

"It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended."

And the difference between Obamacare and car insurance is that you only have to buy car insurance if you want to drive on public roads. Under Obamacare you had to buy health insurance if you existed. Under that standard the government could make you buy a Chevrolet as part of their regulation of interstate commerce.

lesjones.com

Also from Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division...

"As was discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system. Similarly, because virtually no one can be divorced from the transportation market, Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business. . . ."

The Broccoli Defense?

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Dueling Quotes

[TravisBickelsMohawk]

It'll wind up in the hands of the SOTUS. And it's anybody's guess how they'll rule on the issue.

I'm guessing, nada on health care reform.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

Repeal is pointless because the Republicans know it will be struck down by SCOTUS before 2014. Obama will be forced to compromise in order to save at least a few provisions. The question is whether the Republicans do the right thing and work with the President and agree on some kind of health care reform or they remain intransigent.

[Luminiferous]

You are not suggesting the would break their Pledge to America are you 'Noid?

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

You are not suggesting the would break their Pledge to America are you 'Noid?

As far as that silly "Pledge" is concerned, technically they won't break it because they attempted to repeal it and it failed. While they say "We tried!," SCOTUS will do their job for them and now they don't have to compromise.. I suspected they knew this from the beginning. I also suspect that the majority of Republicans won't compromise on health care because they really don't think anything is wrong with the system, even though they won't admit this publicly.