FORWARD...

[Cliffenstein]

Judge lets states' healthcare suit go forward
Tom Brown / Reuters / October 14, 2010

U.S. states can proceed with a lawsuit seeking to overturn President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare reform law, a Florida judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson had said at a hearing last month that he would block efforts by the Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuit, led by Florida and 19 other states.

"In this order, I have not attempted to determine whether the line between constitutional and extraconstitutional government has been crossed," Vinson, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, wrote in his ruling.

"I am only saying that ... the plaintiffs have at least stated a plausible claim that the line has been crossed," Vinson said.

Opponents of Obama's overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system have said it violates the Constitution by imposing what they consider unlawful taxes and requiring citizens to obtain healthcare coverage, among other issues.

The suit was originally filed in March by mostly Republican state attorneys general.

The ruling allowing the case to proceed was a setback for Obama, who has made healthcare reform a cornerstone of his agenda and who is struggling to fight off a strong Republican challenge in November 2 mid-term Congressional elections.

Vinson dismissed four of six claims the states brought against the healthcare law but said he saw grounds to proceed on two counts, including one relating to the way critics say it would force huge new spending by state governments.

On the issue of the so-called "individual mandate," the law's provision that all Americans obtain healthcare insurance, Vinson said the plaintiffs had "most definitely stated a plausible claim" for their objections.

"The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent," he said.

The White House said the government expects to prevail.

"We saw this with the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act -- constitutional challenges were brought to all three of these monumental pieces of legislation, and all of those challenges failed," presidential adviser Stephanie Cutter wrote in a blog post.

"VICTORY FOR STATES"

Vinson said the case would continue as scheduled. He had previously set a hearing for December 16.

"This ruling is a victory for the states, small businesses and the American people," Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said.

"This decision is a recognition that Congress has never gone this far and that the constitutional arguments have real merit," Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said.

The challenge being heard by Vinson is one of many against the healthcare law. There is a hearing in Virginia Monday on the merits of a separate suit against the healthcare overhaul.

On October 7, a Michigan District Court judge upheld the portion of the healthcare law requiring Americans to obtain coverage. The Michigan judge, in a ruling noted by Vinson, said Congress had the authority to enact the law under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and therefore could also impose a penalty for those who failed to obtain health insurance.

Apart from Florida, states joining in the lawsuit include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Washington.

Legal analysts say there is a good possibility the matter will reach the U.S. Supreme Court, but most say there is only a slim chance the states would prevail.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

On October 7, a Michigan District Court judge upheld the portion of the healthcare law requiring Americans to obtain coverage. The Michigan judge, in a ruling noted by Vinson, said Congress had the authority to enact the law under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and therefore could also impose a penalty for those who failed to obtain health insurance.

Legal analysts say there is a good possibility the matter will reach the U.S. Supreme Court, but most say there is only a slim chance the states would prevail.

Victory is imminent.

[Nevermind]

My favorite part of the judge's ruling.
"Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an "Alice-in-Wonderland" tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad power in check."

[Drunk Kennedy]

i dont think it even matters. i would guess the odds of this thing NOT being repealed / replaced are close to zero.

[tin00can]

It's a shame that we're finding our protest voice when it comes to health care, and yet all we did was cheer when we were told we had to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has cost us thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

We have some fucked up priorities.

[Cliffenstein]

It's a shame that we're finding our protest voice when it comes to health care, and yet all we did was cheer when we were told we had to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan

A lot of people protested against Iraq and Afghanistan wars and a lot of people cheered on this health care bill.

[tin00can]

It's a shame that we're finding our protest voice when it comes to health care, and yet all we did was cheer when we were told we had to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan

A lot of people protested against Iraq and Afghanistan wars and a lot of people cheered on this health care bill.

Hogwash. Not at first, anyway. There were very very few people against going into Iraq for the first few years.

[MurrayFiend]

It's a shame that we're finding our protest voice when it comes to health care, and yet all we did was cheer when we were told we had to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan

A lot of people protested against Iraq and Afghanistan wars and a lot of people cheered on this health care bill.

Hogwash. Not at first, anyway. There were very very few people against going into Iraq for the first few years.

Because of the immediate threat of Saddam Hussein, his weapons of mass destruction and his links with al-Qaeda.

[LuciferSanchez]

So let me get this straight...the Republicans are using the courts - judges - to overturn a legislation which they consider wrong?

[Cliffenstein]

So let me get this straight...the Republicans are using the courts - judges - to overturn a legislation which they consider wrong?

Legislation enacted against the clear will of the American people...yes.

[Nevermind]

So let me get this straight...the Republicans are using the courts - judges - to overturn a legislation which they consider wrong?

So let me get this straight. The Democrats are going to pass laws that are in clear violation of the United States Constitution, and the American people are just supposed to accept it? The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.
You might also study up a bit, and you'll learn that it's not just those evil Republicans who are challenging Obamacare in the courts.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

It won't even make it to SCOTUS to be struck down. Congress will repeal it well before 2014. That's what happens when you try to stuff left wing ideology down the throat of a center right country.

Legal analysts say there is a good possibility the matter will reach the U.S. Supreme Court, but most say there is only a slim chance the states would prevail.

LMFAO. Which "legal analysts" think SCOTUS will uphold the widest latitude of the Commerce Clause in US History , pray tell?

[tin00can]

So let me get this straight...the Republicans are using the courts - judges - to overturn a legislation which they consider wrong?

Legislation enacted against the clear will of the American people...yes.

So if it's against the clear will of the American people, then it must be struck down?

[Cliffenstein]

So if it's against the clear will of the American people, then it must be struck down?

Oh please do tell me how Obamacare is comparable to the ending of slavery (by a Republican), et al!

(and while you're there, don't forget to inform me that "Republicans and Democrats were reversed back then, so even though it was the Republicans who ended slavery, it was really the Democrats who did it)

[tin00can]

So if it's against the clear will of the American people, then it must be struck down?

Oh please do tell me how Obamacare is comparable to the ending of slavery (by a Republican), et al!

(and while you're there, don't forget to inform me that "Republicans and Democrats were reversed back then, so even though it was the Republicans who ended slavery, it was really the Democrats who did it)

I was just asking a question. And I don't really care much what republicans and democrats were like back then.

[wylde342]

Another innocent question, because I don't know enough about how the systems work. Can this legislation actually be repealed or whatever, even though it's already passed?

[lerxstcat]

Another innocent question, because I don't know enough about how the systems work. Can this legislation actually be repealed or whatever, even though it's already passed?

Any legislation passed can be repealed.