Monday, January 31, 2011

Strike Two: Florida judge rules ObamaCare unconstitutional

Today Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola ruled that the individual mandate clause of ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Furthermore, Justice Vinson notes that since the mandates are so integral to ObamaCare, the entire 2,700 page nightmare is unconstitutional.

You can read Justice Vinson's entire ruling below (h/t: Michelle Malkin)

For an extra nice touch, Justice Vinson uses Obama's own words against him.

The Washington Times:In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal JudgeRoger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.[...]

The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but rather whether it has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase insurance.
Judge Vinson cited Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could pass constitutional muster including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.
The only thing Justice Vinson did not deliver on was an injunction stopping the immediate implementation of ObamaCare.
The New York Times: [...]The judge declined to immediately enjoin, or suspend, the law pending appeals, a process that could last two years. But he wrote that the federal government should adhere to his declaratory judgment as the functional equivalent of an injunction. That left confusion about how the ruling might be interpreted in the 26 states that are parties to the legal challenge.
The insurance mandate does not take effect until 2014. But many new regulations are already operating, like requirements that insurers cover children with pre-existing health conditions and eliminate lifetime caps on benefits. States are also preparing for a major expansion of Medicaideligibility and the introduction of health insurance 
Even though this ruling doesn't stop ObamaCare in its tracks, the left isn't happy.  On Memeorandum, you can hear them screaming "judicial activism".  The White House even had the gall to call this ruling an overreach!  That is comical seeing how the Democrats overreached all over the place to pass ObamaCare!
What this ruling does is to help advance the battle to repeal ObamaCare to the Supreme Court.  There if all goes well, ObamaCare will meet its demise.  Fingers crossed!


Quite Rightly said...

"judicial activism" "overreach"


But hey, Clinton . . . Another ray of light: William Jacobson is reading the ruling as a declaratory judgment that ObamaCare is invalid and that the judge "expects the federal government to obey the declaration that the law is unenforceable in its entirety."

Welcome back. You were missed.

Gorges Smythe said...

I fear the SCOTUS is liberal enough to uphold Obamacare. I think it will have to be done by Congress, which is no sure thing either.

Janelle said...

Not funding the POS is another way of dealing with it.

Chris Taus said...

The fact that trial judges are political appointees gives the decision even less meaning, especially when the judge rules exactly how you would expect. Barring a death or retirement of one of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court, the healthcare mandate will come down to Anthony Kennedy, and its fate is no more decided today than it was yesterday.

Related Posts with Thumbnails