It didn’t take long for the lefties to get themselves tied in knots.

Anyone out there in Redstate land know if the speed to which this decision will make it to the SCOTUS can be controlled? Right around the Hawkeye Caulkeye would be fine with me… (or the TV debates Obama will refuse to attend). Imagine having to defend “Your Signature Legislation” a 2500 page boondoggle that the house has Repealed, the Dem majority senate is hiding from, the SCOTUS has rejected and the American people hate. It’s gonna suck to be you Mr. President. Even if NBC lets you set up the teleprompter for the debates there is nothing that anyone can write to save from that one big boy… And I’m looking forward watching you squirm.
—luvntheBIGsites

I remember Mark Levin saying that the Virginia judge was right when he severed the law and allowed the rest to remain in force.

My recollection is that both Roberts and Alito both have favored a severable solution rather than have judges declare an entire law unconstitutional.

In fact the defendants are on record as arguing, very forcefully I might add, the health care mandate is essential to the act.

I would also add, they are right. Without the mandate this whole thing sinks like the Lusitania. In fact, it does that without it.

I am just waiting to see if Kennedy stuffs the whole thing down our throat, rewrites the Constitution and then steps on it.

By the way, these words from the opinion will go down in history;

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.

If the Individual mandate is struck down, does severability even matter? Obamacare would collapse, funding wise, without the mandated payments of unwilling participants. Unless they found some new way to magically produce the huge amount of funds needed for this monstrosity. (cut more Medicare from our seniors?…….oh, I know! Lets just print more money!LOL)

If the Individual mandate is struck down, does severability even matter? Obamacare would collapse, funding wise, without the mandated payments of unwilling participants. Unless they found some new way to magically produce the huge amount of funds needed for this monstrosity. (cut more Medicare from our seniors?…….oh, I know! Lets just print more money!LOL)

The issue for the judge is how does a judge decide what is material and not to the implementation of the act. he specifically said that is what Congresses job is. That is why when the left calls him an activist judge i can not stop laughing.

But… is there a server or HTML issue making double posts? Is there someone at redstate over IT? I find it unlikely its from our end. Another *shrug*

A good day.

This is what I’ve been laughing about all along– their flim flam argument that the unconstitutionality of the mandate should be “overlooked” because it was central to the whole law is exactly what gave this astute judge the leverage to nullify the whole law

That, and the incompetence of Congress in forgetting the severability clause…

Regardless, you can’t have a law mandating coverage without an individual mandate, it will cause a premium “death spiral” as has been well-documented, so nullifying the whole law was completely logical and appropriate.

This is a big win– this give Kennedy even more cover to be the deciding vote

My main concern is that Obama will drag his heels as long as possible to appeal and in fact try to stall the SCOTUS review– this will just allow more and more of the law to be implemented and use that as an argument not to rescind it

I am ignorant here, is there any way to expedite this coming before the Supremes?

Also, with 2 judges now declaring it unconstitutional it seems ridiculous to keep funding and implementing the law in the mean time?

Great news though, this was the best of all possible outcomes in this ruling, I was ecstatic to hear the extent of his ruling.

This is what I’ve been laughing about all along– their flim flam argument that the unconstitutionality of the mandate should be “overlooked” because it was central to the whole law is exactly what gave this astute judge the leverage to nullify the whole law

That, and the incompetence of Congress in forgetting the severability clause…

Regardless, you can’t have a law mandating coverage without an individual mandate, it will cause a premium “death spiral” as has been well-documented, so nullifying the whole law was completely logical and appropriate.

This is a big win– this give Kennedy even more cover to be the deciding vote

My main concern is that Obama will drag his heels as long as possible to appeal and in fact try to stall the SCOTUS review– this will just allow more and more of the law to be implemented and use that as an argument not to rescind it

I am ignorant here, is there any way to expedite this coming before the Supremes?

Also, with 2 judges now declaring it unconstitutional it seems ridiculous to keep funding and implementing the law in the mean time?

Great news though, this was the best of all possible outcomes in this ruling, I was ecstatic to hear the extent of his ruling.

“I am ignorant here, is there any way to expedite this coming before the Supremes?”

Its a valid question… Just like why your post appears twice…. I would like an answer to both myself, but I’m waaaaayyyyy down there on the totem pole. sooooo *shrug*

In case anyone’s interested, here’s a link to Judge Roger Vinson’s Summary Judgment re: Florida et al vs. Sebelius.

…part of Obamacare IMO. The most offensive parts are that the federal government feels it has the authority to define a minimum benefit level and community rating. I want the freedom to buy an insurance policy that meets my needs as a unique individual and I want my rates set based on my risk. These two provisions in Obamacare are naked wealth redistribution. I have a high deductible plan with an HSA and I want to keep it. The Feds have NO authority here.

on the Massachusetts health care law? It is my understanding that it also contains an individual mandate. Will this have any effect on other mandates required at the state or federal level?

After all, the judge killed the whole bill before it even had the chance to destroy the entire healthcare system. Therefore, the bill was aborted. I don’t know what the leftists are so upset about. It is a judge’s constitutional right to choose to abort this bill!

It’s looking more and more that the judiciary will be the branch of government that destroys ObamaCare. That’s why it’s so important for a Republican to win the White House, even a moderate will generally try to make conservative judicial appointments. Sometimes it works out well, sometimes not (look at Clarence Thomas vs Souter by Bush Sr.)

Call me a cynic, but I don’t think we’re ever going to have the 60 plus seat majority in the Senate to repeal ObamaCare outright. It will probably be death by a thousand cuts similar to this one.

If the individual mandate is overturned, the major crux of the bill is destroyed. Thank Heavens for Scott Brown, had he not come along I think the bill would have been reworked to get through the courts.

Any chance I will get a refund on whatever money (if any) is left in the 10 year slush fund to fund 6 years worth of services?

Were I the plaintiffs here I would go right back to the judge and move for an injunction on implementation of the law pending the appeal process. The basis would be the far reaching nature of the changes the law calls for and that they are being started now.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) announced this afternoon that all 47 Republican senators have signed on to his bill to repeal the sweeping health law passed last year.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) announced this afternoon that all 47 Republican senators have signed on to his bill to repeal the sweeping health law passed last year.

Good. The hand writes and moves on. Let’s hope that moving hand is our side.

I don’t buy that it was an ‘oversight’. This was left out intentionally. That being the case, what are the dems really planning here?

Let’s see what happens if the mandate is gone but the rest of the bill gets implemented: Well, our financial DOOM becomes much more immediate for one thing.

Am I just being paranoid? Are you sure?

I do not pretend to understand the legality of it and how they jammed it through with reconciliation, but my understanding is the severability clause was unintentionally left out of the Senate version of the bill– and once Scott Brown got elected, they were forced to vote on what they had and couldn’t add it back since they never had conference between the houses to reconcile the bills– they had to vote “as is”

I may be dead wrong but that is my recollection. It’s a colossall screwup because the mandate is in fact germaine to the whole bill, as opposed to another part which may have been sliced off without undermining its integrity.

I think there were a few diaries here explaining the process better than I could, but my impression was that it was an oversight that couldn’t be fixed once Brown won the “People’s Seat”– that may yet turn out to be the final death of this abominable bill in the end…

I think that just to be sure I go to the Appeals Court then and ask for the injunction.

I’ve copied this from the syllabus of a recent Supreme Court opinion (Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB) that addressed the severability issue. It seems pretty clear to me that the 11th circuit will invalidate at least this portion of Judge Vinson’s opinion. This thing is far from over.

“The unconstitutional tenure provisions are severable from theremainder of the statute. Because “[t]he unconstitutionality of a partof an Act does not necessarily defeat or affect the validity of its re-maining provisions,” Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Okla., 286 U. S. 210, 234, the “normal rule” is “that partial . . . in-validation is the required course,” Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U. S. 491, 504.”

Judge Vinson’s decision is good news, and we all hope that it will prevail when Obamacare finally reaches the Supreme Court two years from now. However, that is not certain, and there remain substantial political powers who regard this vast extension of federal power as constitutional based upon the Supreme Court’s vast expansion of the interstate commerce clause since 1937. The only sure way to stop not only Obamacare, but the innumerable other ways in which the federal government has increased its power beyond the original scope of the Constitution, is to reverse those Supreme Court cases and restore the interstate commerce clause to its original meaning. Given how entrenched these Supreme Court precedents are, this will require a constitutional amendment restating the original, very limited scope of the interstate commerce clause. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

What happens to that? Since it’s not tied to Obamacare, how is that not severable?