Supreme Court Bound! Health Care Reform Law Unconstitutional

[Sallow]

I hope I don't see this healthcare bill end up being a tax.

its a fee, its a tax....no its a fee, no its a tax, no its a fee no its a tax.....shes my sister shes my daughter.... shes my sister shes my daughter....

Great movie you referenced..I loved "Chinatown".

 

[Foxfyre]

He ruled on only those portions of the law he reviewed and indicated he was using the "tried and true" conservative standard regarding those provisions.

He did not review the entire law; his ruling is not going to stand as the definitive word on Severability. The judgment includes that he didn't have enough information to rule on the entire law.

I don't know for sure and I'm way out of my league debating fine terms of law with our resident legal beagles here, but the way I'm understanding this so far is that the judge dug out a portion of the bill that he judged to be clearly unconstitutional and left the rest as it was.

Pretty much the same thing was done with the Arizona law--a judge dug out the couple of phrases he saw as violation of rights or some such, and then let the remainder stand.

It seems that Arizona has chosen to appeal that judge's decision and will proceed all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary to restore the components the judge nixed. The Arizona Legislature doesn't seem interested in reversing the rest of it at this time.

It will be interesting to see if the Obama Administration will appeal the judge's ruling. I suppose however, if a subsequent Congress repeals the whole law, that would be moot.

 

[loosecannon]

I truly believe that he has every right to speak his mind. Making Illegally obtained Classified Government Documents available to the public is not a Free Speech issue. It is Theft, and I'm sure a couple of other things too. Had it been your Financial Statements or Medical Records released I'm sure you would see it differently.

Not true at all. It is theft, or other crimes, by whoever leaked the documents. Once in the hands of WikiLeaks or the NY Times or others, it is protected. This is a good case in point about people being choosy about which rights they like.

If it is stolen property, then wikileaks has received stolen property at the very least. Time to use some common sense here and protect our state secrets. And I believe that a state secret is still a secret as long as the information is contained, wikileaks is the uncontainer. There should be no 1st amendment protection to reveal classified material.

A) nothing was actually stolen, it was copied, big difference

B) the US doesn't have any states secrets laws

 

[goldcatt]

He ruled on only those portions of the law he reviewed and indicated he was using the "tried and true" conservative standard regarding those provisions.

He did not review the entire law; his ruling is not going to stand as the definitive word on Severability. The judgment includes that he didn't have enough information to rule on the entire law.

I don't know for sure and I'm way out of my league debating fine terms of law with our resident legal beagles here, but the way I'm understanding this so far is that the judge dug out a portion of the bill that he judged to be clearly unconstitutional and left the rest as it was.

Pretty much the same thing was done with the Arizona law--a judge dug out the couple of phrases he saw as violation of rights or some such, and then let the remainder stand.

It seems that Arizona has chosen to appeal that judge's decision and will proceed all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary to restore the components the judge nixed. The Arizona Legislature doesn't seem interested in reversing the rest of it at this time.

It will be interesting to see if the Obama Administration will appeal the judge's ruling. I suppose however, if a subsequent Congress repeals the whole law, that would be moot.

You understand it correctly.

And it's pretty much a given that the Administration will appeal, as the judge indicated in his order. It's an issue of first impression, meaning the exact underlying legal concepts they're arguing have never been decided in our courts before. These are the cases most likely to go all the way - but it's got a long way to go before it gets there.

 

[loosecannon]

Ten pages and, unless I've missed it, no one has noted that the health care reform law has not been ruled unconstitutional. Not only did Hudson specifically decline to halt implementation of the law, he rejected the plaintiff's request that he rule the entire law unconstitutional. Instead, he ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional and specifically severed it from the rest of the law, which survives intact. From a court that was obviously going to rule against the ACA, this is a surprisingly favorable ruling.

He struck down the single most necessary component in the bill. Without the means to force everybody to participate the bill is unworkable and unacceptable to the health insurance industry and is no longer a "universal" health care bill. Meaning is does nothing for the dems. Nothing at all. It doesn't finance the poor on the backs of those who can afford coverage, it doesn't rescue medicare, it basically dismantled the entire premise the bill was forged around.

Most people would just continue buying private insurance and ignore the whole thing unless the government's plan was actually cheaper.

And the states will definitely balk at having to erect exchanges if participation is low.

The bill is bankrupt without this provision in force.

 

[Intense]

Judicial Despotism

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

Search "Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government"

 

[SFC Ollie]

Not true at all. It is theft, or other crimes, by whoever leaked the documents. Once in the hands of WikiLeaks or the NY Times or others, it is protected. This is a good case in point about people being choosy about which rights they like.

If it is stolen property, then wikileaks has received stolen property at the very least. Time to use some common sense here and protect our state secrets. And I believe that a state secret is still a secret as long as the information is contained, wikileaks is the uncontainer. There should be no 1st amendment protection to reveal classified material.

A) nothing was actually stolen, it was copied, big difference

B) the US doesn't have any states secrets laws

It was classified material. Nuff said.

 

[Bern80]

"The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937.......

..........by a court that FDR had to threaten to pack to uphold his SS act. Are you that ignorant of history?

 

[jillian]

Judicial Despotism

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

Search "Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government"

you know he lost that battle, right?

it's all well and good to look at what some politicians said 200 plus years ago, but it isn't law...

and it's barely authoritative

again, please read Marbury v Madison.

 

[SFC Ollie]

In laymen terms.

The Bill was a pile of shit to begin with and after the unconstitutional part is removed it will become a larger pile of crapola. Congress needs to rescind it and start over, without the back room deals and remembering that the objective is not power but lowering costs.

 

[loosecannon]

It's an issue of first impression, meaning the exact underlying legal concepts they're arguing have never been decided in our courts before. These are the cases most likely to go all the way - but it's got a long way to go before it gets there.

are you saying that the ruling by the Judge today is not a parallel ruling to the MI and VA cases that have already upheld the entire bill? As in there are no contradictions to settle between the three rulings?

 

[goldcatt]

In laymen terms.

The Bill was a pile of shit to begin with and after the unconstitutional part is removed it will become a larger pile of crapola. Congress needs to rescind it and start over, without the back room deals and remembering that the objective is not power but lowering costs.

I actually agree with you, but the Court cant rule it unconstitutional just because the law sucks. That's up to Congress. Good luck.

 

[Greenbeard]

He struck down the single most necessary component in the bill. Without the means to force everybody to participate the bill is unworkable and unacceptable to the health insurance industry and is no longer a "universal" health care bill. Meaning is does nothing for the dems. Nothing at all. It doesn't finance the poor on the backs of those who can afford coverage, it doesn't rescue medicare, it basically dismantled the entire premise the bill was forged around.

The poor aren't touched by this decision at all. Because the poor (actually, anyone with an income under 138% of the federal poverty line) is automatically eligible for Medicaid. ACA's expansions of state Medicaid programs are preserved in this ruling.

Indeed, nothing actually changes for those who would be getting insurance through exchanges, either, as long as their incomes are under 400% of the poverty line. The ACA requires a certain premium contribution that's pegged to a person's income; the rest of the premium (up to the the value of the 2nd cheapest silver actuarial plan in the area) is financed through a refundable, advanceable tax credit. Meaning the cost of the law itself rises if the valuable of the silver plan rises, not the cost to the subsidized consumer.

People who need insurance would still get it, and at the same price. Those who opt to be free riders until they get sick would now be able to, which is different (though of course the additional expenses to the non-subsidized exchange population and the federal government are a direct result of this adverse selection). I doubt their newfound ability to free-ride would turn them against the Dems. But as I've said multiple times now: 1) this decision is not the final word on ACA, and 2) even if it were, states (and the feds) can institute alternative methods of discouraging free-riding.

Most people would just continue buying private insurance and ignore the whole thing unless the government's plan was actually cheaper.

What government plan? There is no new government plan under the ACA.

And the states will definitely balk at having to erect exchanges if participation is low.

I'm not sure what the rationale for this statement is.

 

[loosecannon]

If it is stolen property, then wikileaks has received stolen property at the very least. Time to use some common sense here and protect our state secrets. And I believe that a state secret is still a secret as long as the information is contained, wikileaks is the uncontainer. There should be no 1st amendment protection to reveal classified material.

A) nothing was actually stolen, it was copied, big difference

B) the US doesn't have any states secrets laws

It was classified material. Nuff said.

It doesn't matter classified material is "unclassified" as soon as it enters the public domain. Whereas actual stolen hard copies are still stolen material no matter how many times they change hands.

And IF we had a state's secrets law then "information" that was a state secret would be classified even after it was in the public domain regardless of whether it was hard copies or copies of the original.

The pentagon papers were similar: literally xeroxed and diseminated and it was classified material released publicly in the media but Ellsberg was not convicted for espionage. In fact in the ruling one judge wrote:

Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
—Justice Black

New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713)

 

[goldcatt]

It's an issue of first impression, meaning the exact underlying legal concepts they're arguing have never been decided in our courts before. These are the cases most likely to go all the way - but it's got a long way to go before it gets there.

are you saying that the ruling by the Judge today is not a parallel ruling to the MI and VA cases that have already upheld the entire bill? As in there are no contradictions to settle between the three rulings?

They were also matters of first impression.

It gets a little tricky here. The Eastern District of VA is not bound by a ruling from another court at the same level in MI or even another District of VA. They're all just guessing, with nothing to guide them.

There's also a question of whether those cases that upheld the ACA in toto used the same legal theory - I have no idea, I haven't read them. They may in fact all have been decided on different grounds.

Binding precedent on a District Court comes from its own Circuit's decisions and SCOTUS. Other Circuits' decisions and other District level decisions can be considered, but they don't actually "have" to follow them. They're not in that court's "chain of command", so to speak.

Remember, this was just the trial court level. Then it goes to appeal at the Circuit level before a panel of three judges, then potentially to another Circuit level appeal before all of the judges in that Circuit, then to SCOTUS if cert is granted. This was only the first step. But the specific Courts "up" in that chain are the only Courts whose opinions the District "must" follow.

Confused yet?

 

[SFC Ollie]

A) nothing was actually stolen, it was copied, big difference

B) the US doesn't have any states secrets laws

It was classified material. Nuff said.

It doesn't matter classified material is "unclassified" as soon as it enters the public domain. Whereas actual stolen hard copies are still stolen material no matter how many times they change hands.

And IF we had a state's secrets law then "information" that was a state secret would be classified even after it was in the public domain regardless of whether it was hard copies or copies of the original.

The pentagon papers were similar: literally xeroxed and diseminated and it was classified material released publicly in the media but Ellsberg was not convicted for espionage. In fact in the ruling one judge wrote:

Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
—Justice Black

New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713)

This is not exactly deceiving the people. This is doing harm to at least our diplomacy, if not more.

 

[Trajan]

you crafted one of your patented 2000 word answers...

If my posts are too long, just say so. I've been working on explaining complex issues to children. I have very intelligent nieces and nephews.

been waiting a while to get one off I bet.... you wound me sir, tsk tsk....

Oh I am sure complex issues via your boiler room templates require 2000 words etc....you mash the cliche; " If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" into pudding....because we both know twice, you have had to after several posts back and forth and making me verbally box you into a corner, all the while knowing exactly what was coming, had to admit that yes what I was asking and what I stated was in the end true......you know it, I know it, you engage in obfuscation with purpose because like all whose position doesn't hold water upon examination, do your best to slough it off.....old game bro. try another tac.

 

[loosecannon]

The poor aren't touched by this decision at all.

Yes they are, there will be no pool of paying participants to shoulder their premiums.

Most people would just continue buying private insurance and ignore the whole thing unless the government's plan was actually cheaper.

What government plan? There is no new government plan under the ACA.

the exchanges

And the states will definitely balk at having to erect exchanges if participation is low.

I'm not sure what the rationale for this statement is.

The states already are resisting the mandate to erect these exchanges and support them without compensation. If it is a futile gesture with low unpredictable participation they will resist much more, being broke and all...

The economic and mechanics of the bill are utterly scrambled by scuttling this sole provision.

The health care bill is dead unless the SC (or another higher court) over rules today's ruling.

 

[loosecannon]

Confused yet?

No that was actually a really good explanation.

It gets a little tricky here. The Eastern District of VA is not bound by a ruling from another court at the same level in MI or even another District of VA. They're all just guessing, with nothing to guide them....

Binding precedent on a District Court comes from its own Circuit's decisions and SCOTUS. Other Circuits' decisions and other District level decisions can be considered, but they don't actually "have" to follow them. They're not in that court's "chain of command", so to speak.

I had no idea....what a bizarre system.

There's also a question of whether those cases that upheld the ACA in toto used the same legal theory - I have no idea, I haven't read them. They may in fact all have been decided on different grounds.

Ok, thanks for that clarification. I thought you said earlier that they definitely were decided on different grounds. Just wanted to be sure i understood.

 

[goldcatt]

Confused yet?

No that was actually a really good explanation.

It gets a little tricky here. The Eastern District of VA is not bound by a ruling from another court at the same level in MI or even another District of VA. They're all just guessing, with nothing to guide them....

Binding precedent on a District Court comes from its own Circuit's decisions and SCOTUS. Other Circuits' decisions and other District level decisions can be considered, but they don't actually "have" to follow them. They're not in that court's "chain of command", so to speak.

I had no idea....what a bizarre system.

There's also a question of whether those cases that upheld the ACA in toto used the same legal theory - I have no idea, I haven't read them. They may in fact all have been decided on different grounds.

Ok, thanks for that clarification. I thought you said earlier that they definitely were decided on different grounds. Just wanted to be sure i understood.

It is a little complicated. Think of the Courts at the different levels like coworkers. You might ask a coworker at your same level for advice and even listen to them sometimes, but you only really "have" to listen to your boss.

And the same case can be heard many times using many different theories, you just have to find somebody different to bring it. If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Just ask the birthers.

Could be the situation, maybe it's not, I have no idea. But it'll get sorted out at some level of appeal.