This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Administration To Appeal Virginia Court Healthcare Ruling To A Higher Court
Just Reuters headlines for now stating that following up yesterday's announcement by a Virginia Judge who finds sections of the healthcare ruling unconstitutional, that the Justice department (where Eric Holder was just taken out of the fridge precisely for this occasion) would appeal the decision to a higher, presumably far more captured, and more corrupt court.
From Reuters:
The Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy
"Virginia's
Department said on Tuesday it intends to appeal to a U.S. appeals court a
ruling by a judge in Virginia declaring a key part of President Barack
Obama's landmark healthcare law unconstitutional.
Schmaler said the Virginia lawsuit at issue was one of a number of cases
concerning the law pending before courts around the country, including
four in which challenges were unsuccessful.
suit is based on a state statute that is ot applicable nationwide, and
the department believes this case should follow the ordinary course of
allowing the courts of appeals to hear it first so the issues and
arguments can be fully developed before the Supreme Court decides
whether to consider it," she said in a statement.
»
- 2962 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I don't want to go partisan here, as I truly hate both, full blown Kabuki Theater 'different' parties with as much equal bile, but why not pass a law that requires most Americans also buy life insurance, too?
You know...because of externalities (who will take care of the family if the breadwinner dies and has no life insurance?) and other economic issues to society at large?
Careful what you wish for, even jokingly. Would'nt the Goverment love to issue that insurance, and of course put the money from it aside so it wouldn't get "lost" somehow!
Good point.
I shouldn't have mentioned that.
It might give a Dodd, Boehner or Frank somewhere an idea - because life insurance premiums are more blood for the parasiteS.
Too late. I think I smell the smoke from those hamster wheels turning 10K rpm, all the way out here in CA.
Life insurance, car insurance, renters insurance, hey might as well go whole hog.
It could be Amerinsurance!! Due to be just as solvent as Medipander within 5 to 10 years!
And, don't forget, make the gov't the beneficiary.
This is like forcing all Americans to buy season tickets to an all you can eat buffet. If we didn't make people buy food insurance, they would surely starve!
Yeah we should be forced to buy homeowner's insurance, life insurance, renter's insurance, and insurance against insurer defaults. Oh yeah, can't forget about car insurance.
That way we'll be safe no matter what happens. Let the people struggling to make ends meet figure out how to pay for it.
AMERICAN POLITICIANS AND BANKSTERS: WE STEAL FROM THE PEOPLE TO GIVE TO THE ULTRA-RICH. THE MODERN UN-ROBIN HOOD, THE DOOH NIBOR.
http://unconstitutional.blogspot.com
Sorry hatter, didn't see this before I posted.
They certainly are robbin' the hood.
Benjamin Disraeli, prime minister of GB in the late 1800s, famously said, "There is only one thing parliament can do, and that is anything it wants."
We're getting there.
If we reach that point, the best thing our Congress can do is ... DUCK!
They pretty much already have ... its called Social Security
And yes, I know ... SS was ruled Constitutional as a "tax" when in reality it is a supplemental life insurance policy ... a crappy WHOLE life policy that sucks your productive labor your WHOLE life ...
It's actually more like an annuity. Life insurance pays off when you die.
SS pays off when you die too ... if you have dependents or named beneficiaries ...
We are already forced to buy Social Insuranse...SSI. And that is turning out to be a pretty sweet deal! I can't wait to start collecting mine!
Obama worst Constitutional lawyer ever.
Obama worst [insert title] ever.
FIFY.
goes to show you the disconnect between academics and practitioners...
Absolutely exactly.
Except he never was a "constitutional lawyer" or "constitutional law professor" as has become popular myth. This is a fiction created by ignorant media. He was an instructor at U of Chicago's law school. Instructor does not equal professor - it is well below and more like a glorified teaching assistant. It is akin to a nurse practitioner vs. a real doctor (M.D.). To be an actual professor you need to have significant publications and approval from a number of the existing tenured professors. To become an instructor you need only have a decent law degree and GPA. Obama was given plenty of opportunity to become a real professor by publishing academic articles, but showed no interest and instead worked on writing Mein Kampf, err I mean his autobiography before he had really done much of interest.
And let's not start on Michelle Obama's "job" at U of C. That should be a couple of indictments and a huge helping of excess benefit tax right there. (If you're not a tax lawyer, look up excess benefit tax before you claim it wouldn't apply.)
That's right. How dare anyone get in the way of our plans.
At least Thomas' opinion should be interesting reading on this. But honestly with the sate of the commerce clause it's fine. Everything is allowed the Federal Government under the commerce clause as long as they don't forget to invoke it properly. Wickard v Filburn was the case that delivered the hammer blow to the limits of Federal power.
Clarence Thomas gives conservatism a bad name, and libertarians should loathe the man.
There really is no friend of libertarians on the SCOTUS, sadly.
I've been rubbing my crystal balls and I predict supreme court upholds Virginia 5-4. Thus sayeth The Dickus.
Bet this one won't get there fast enough for Judge Roberts.
Indeed, and that scarily close decision is the reason we can't have another anti-american statist prick nominating supreme court justices for a while: The Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause clearly doesn't say Congress can make any individual do any damn thing it pleases, but 4 justices out of the 9 will say it does.
While they had him out he decided to help a Muslim woman sue her school district so she could take time off to go to Mecca too. The only other thing left for him to do is attack Arizona again, so he'll disappear shortly.
Anyone else notice the drive in the media to isolate the dissenters is picking up lately?
http://tinyurl.com/285evcj
Hoenig will soon be run out of town on a rail, along with anyone else "dumb" enough to question the recovery or those who gave rise to it, while the doom and gloomers tried to drag the world down with them.
Maybe this is the beginning of the crack up boom instead of a final collapse? Im just gonna sit on my gold either way.
Stunning, how this Crew opposes the will of the populace at every turn. Adversarial governance equals one term. To wit: the Election of 2010, and results -- for Democrats -- of same.
Fuck the 'will of the populace'.
I won't suffer such. And if that's how you really think Don, then I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
Legislative laws and judiciary appeals, kind of like a white collar, shovel ready, work stimulus program.
Your avatar makes me angry.
(I might have accidentally conjured a demon)
George Mason would be proud of U.S. District Court judge Henry E. Hudson. Go Cavaliers.
holder is busy protecting your right to go to Mecca
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338512/Muslim-women-sues-denied-weeks-unpaid-leave-make-pilgrimage-Mecca.html
Excellent! Now I can take paid time off to get to Rome. WoooHooo!
Supposing I were atheist, where would I get to go on vacation, and when? Damnation!
Entertaining reading the "Anti Health Care" posts.....
Before I start my rant, let me be clear, the health care bill is shameful and I do not support it.
Obama is a shameful sell out and I find his conduct, despicable... and yes by "todays" labels I am liberal (but with a very strong fiscal conservative belief, you don't spend money you don't have)... was considered conservative (as in Goldwater conservative, "Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedon for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.") until "Regan-Bush I and II Credit Card Conservatives" years.
It is morally wrong to profit from the pain and suffering of humans. Yes people in the health care industry deserve and have earned a comfortable life style in return for the work they do. However, the profits in the "medical industry" are obscene, it is for all intents and purposes a monopoly and should be regulated as one.
I know of people in the United States that have died due to lack of care because they did not have insurance and could not pay. But in our current culture of "fuck you, I have mine", this is acceptable. After all the people who have not earned or do not have, enough money to purchase care deserve to suffer........ and if they die, well that's too bad, lazy bastards they deserve what they get...
And while I am at it, the Constitution was not founded on "Christian Conservative" principles, (talk about rewriting history!!!!) it was founded on LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE IDOLOGY!!! Suggest you read Madison's "Federalist Papers" ....
If you were "conservative" at the time the constitution was written you would NOT have supported the "terrorists" lead by our "founding fathers".
"INALIENABLE RIGHTS AND EQUALITY" are profoundly liberal concepts.
'"INALIENABLE RIGHTS AND EQUALITY" are profoundly liberal concepts.'
Granted by...?
+ Infinity
Our founding fathers were libertarians and would have nothing to do with the LEFT or RIGHT political parties that have captured our government ... talk about re-writing history ...
And your screed about not having insurance and not able to pay and lack of care is a crock of shit ... no one is denied healthcare in the United States. That is the cost problem ... but not everyone is Steve Jobs and can order a new liver every 3 months when his liver is encapsulated by the Pancreatic cancer that will eventually kill him. So yes, there is inequality in health care, but so is there inequality in all aspects of life ... except one ... individual freedom ... it is the verbal menstrating, diarrheal dipshits like you that make "progress" difficult as you continue to want to pull everyone down to your level of ineptitude ...
Junk away ... you know I'm right ...
You're frighteningly clueless. Why are people with pre-existing conditions barred from obtaining coverage? Oh, yeah, because of a "cost problem". No, it certainly has nothing to do with an immoral industry that denies care in order to protect profit. I'm sure it just has to do with the masses being lazy and not working hard enough to be like Steve Jobs.
The current meaning of libertarianism has nothing to do with the original meaning of the word. Now, it is nothing more than complete corporate servitude and this absurd selfishness; it originally had everything to do with strong advocacy of free will and absolute ownership of oneself. The philosophy you are promoting has nothing to do with that. You want to use this twisted notion of "individual freedom" to cause harm to others (i.e. condemning people to death that can't afford to pay for some life-saving treatment). What a lovely reality you reside in.
Yet another fatuous remark. Why should 50 million Americans be uninsured? Why should 50K people die each year when they could have been saved? Why should we pay twice per capita and achieve the worst outcomes? Why should medical costs be the most cited reason for home foreclosure? We should begrudgingly accept all this because "there is inequality in all aspects of life"? If that were the case, why is this not such a problem in every other industrialized nation? Why are we the only ones that have for so long been unable to achieve a universal health care system?
Obvious troll is obvious.
Projection: CHECK.
Strawmen fallacies: CHECK.
Made-up statistics: CHECK.
BfA talking points: CHECK.
Trix are for kids ...
What makes you think that the individual mandate is a part of free will and absolute ownership of oneself? It sounds an awful lot like force to me.
Go read up on the history of how we got into this healthcare mess in the first place. Hint: it's all about government intervention such as wage and price controls causing employers to offer health plans instead of higher wages and the HMO act which really created a huge monster. That health insurance is tied to employment in any way is beyond absurd.
Add in that CONgress' pockets are lined with plenty of FRNs, etc. by Big Health and Big Pharma and it's a recipe for disaster.
What continues to baffle me throughout this ongoing debate is how generally rational people somehow think that healthcare/health insurance is somehow exempt from the fundamental laws of economics.
Without massive government intervention and third party insurance companies dictating what we can and cannot do with our health, competition would increase and costs would come down, probably rather dramatically.
When I was growing up, my parents had an inexpensive policy for catastrophic health events and all other expenses were paid out of pocket or even bartered. My folks were not wealthy and I'm one of 8 kids. We had EXCELLENT care; even had a pediatrician who made house calls. There were also clinics for the poor and doctors who treated people even if they couldn't pay.
By the way, I'm one of the 50 gazillion uninsured in the USSA and I'm not in favor of stealing from others to pay for my insurance. I'm waiting for enough of us to get fed up, and for some docs and other providers to grow a set, drop out of the system completely, and provide black market health care.
inalienable rights are things that cannot be granted or gained by man or men. it comes from our Creator...hence the word inalienable
fiscal conservatives wouldnt allow a piece of their income to be transferred to others via government decree. just because you can keep your own home budget in order doesnt mean you can steal from me. you are not a fiscal conservative as you dont even know what you are conserving...surely not someone's property rights which would include the fruits of their labor
some good points Cleareye.
Pray tell, what would some of those inalienable rights be? For many of us it's not a matter of F**** you I have mine but rather the fact that a government is forcing us to make a purchase. Is not the money I earn mine? Do I not have a right to do with it as I please? I find it morally reprehensible that my government wants to tell me that I must purchase a product or else be fined, how are you going to explain to me that this is morally correct. I may feel morally obligated to help my fellow man who has less then me and donate to charities that assist those in need, but obligating me to do so by force or coercion is morally wrong.
Where do the moral values of Liberal Progressive Ideology come from?
This seems to fly in the face of creative destruction. If somebody cannot pay their bills should we let them slide? It profoundly immoral to steal also.
Life is terminal...or "On a long enough timeline...."
If insurance companies are raising premiums at a rate that cannot be afforded by most people, I find it extremely dubious the blame for this should be placed on the misfortunate people unable to pay these rates. There should be no profit motive when it comes to medical care. Insurance companies are businesses that want to maximize profit, and in order to do this they need to minimize their expenses (deny care to people that may cost more to cover). I'm not sure how any ethically sound person can justify such a monstrous system.
This seems to fly in the face of creative destruction. If somebody cannot pay their bills should we let them slide? It profoundly immoral to steal also.
Life is terminal...or "On a long enough timeline...."
Replacing fascism with communism is not an improvement.
Read this: http://mises.org/daily/4276
Exactly ... thanks for pointing the false dilemma of the U.S. healthcare system ...
"Health insurance" != "healthcare"
Everyone has access to healthcare. No one has "insurance" that guarantees the "best" care ... that involves slavery and I thought we outlawed that in the 1860's (and finally nailed that coffin shut in 1964 ... ) ... but maybe I missed the provision that said "No one can be slaves ... except healthcare providers"
However, the profits in the "medical industry" are obscene, it is for all intents and purposes a monopoly and should be broken up like AT&T was, so competition can come back in.
There, fixed it.
hardcleareye = proof positive that you can lead a jack-ass to water, but can't make them think.
Please go read the cases and background leading up to the McCarran-Ferguson Act - insurance was pronounced to not be interstate commerce by the Act. So how can it be so now?
"The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal anti-trust laws to a limited extent. The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution." (wikipedia)
Our current (and many former) tyrannical deciders in the executive and legislative branch have respect for case law decisions. They make up applicability as they go along, to do what is best for the Plutocrats, Oligarchs and Corpocracy.
Don't necessarily despair, TD. Remember that the 4th Circuit was Bush/Cheney's favorite. It's why they squirreled away people like Padilla in the South Carolina brig. Home field advantage. Very conservative, the polar opposite of SF's Ninth Circuit. So this decision, which is maybe a little flaky in its legal reasoning, might very well be withheld, if not on Judge Hudson's ground, then on another. The issue will be decided by Anthony Kennedy, of course, like always. For Obamacare: Breyer, Ginsburg, Soto, Kagan. Against: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas. They remember Obama dissing them last year in the SOTU speech. Payback's a bitch.
Upheld, not withheld.
First appeal goes to 4th Circuit. I used to live there, and it's a pretty conservative circuit. Doubt Holder gets much joy there, just practice for SCOTUS.
SCOTUS appeal will be far enough down the road, that pervasive hatred of the Administration will start weighing on the Supremes' decision. Further, we are likely to see a serious effort at legislative repeal by then.
I wrote on March 23rd:
Today the President signed a bill to fix health care by forcing every American to buy health insurance – or else pay a fine.
The President then said that he expects the Congress to present him with a bill to create jobs by forcing every American to buy a GM car – or else pay a fine.
When asked how every American can afford to buy health insurance and a car from GM, the President said that he will sign an executive order forcing every American to get a loan from a bank – or else pay a fine, and every bank will be forced to give those loans – or else pay a fine.
One brave reporter then asked, “But Mr. President, isn’t that Fascism?”, and he quoted The Philosophy of Fascism (Mario Palmieri, 1936):
To which the President replied, “Look … It’s NOT Fascism … because we don’t CALL it that.”
http://www.endofinnocence.com/2010/03/not-fascism-because-we-dont-call-it.html
Now we have TWO (Virginian) Federal judges with opposing rulings, so, to the Supremes!
Regarding Obamacare and what will likely come down, I think Michael S. Rozeff's post on www.lewrockwell.com entitled "An Easy Prediction" is on the money:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/73055.html
Here are just 2 of the points Rozeff makes:
(1) The Court doesn’t usually overturn major legislation of Congress. (2) It won’t go back to the original meaning of the commerce clause. It believes in a living Constitution.
The 3rd point, well, please read his entry. Obamacare flies.
Agreed, Obamacare will be found to not violate the commerce clause. To not side with Congress would threaten the huge house of cards.
I wouldn't be so sure. I think it is 50/50. The court would in essence be saying that Congress can force any private individual to buy a product from a private company. The fact that the main parts of the law won't be implemented till 2014 means the justices will feel they have some flexibility to vacate the law. Previous entitlements didn't arrive at the court till they were already mostly implemented.
The four conservative justices will vote to repeal, the four liberal justices will vote to uphold, and the fate of ObamaCare and America's fiscal future will come down to Anthony Kennedy's views on the commerce clause. Kennedy in the past has taken both sides of the commerce clause argument, depending on the details.
If the mandate goes down, ObamaCare doesn't have a severability clause, so the whole thing would be a train wreck.
If it is upheld, that's the end of the Constitution.
Precisely! >:(
All Europeans have their income confiscated like that. big governements steal from the ppl and we all accept it otherwise they have FEMA, trials, prisons .
congress is exempt from obama care..
obama send his kids to private school
congress has it's own retirement system
and no it's not social sec
seems like these great plans are not good enough for those that write the laws
does this bother anyone else?
PS they don't get scanned or molested while traveling
the new elite, until they are forced to live by the laws and regulations they make for us I do not support any plan of theirs.
Translation.... "We are going to string this appeal along as long as possible hoping that either one of the conservative justices dies, so much of ObamaCare gets implemented that it will be impossible to undo, or we figure out how to expand the court to 11 justices.
screw them. i dont have a problem with healthcare for all. i do have a problem with my broke ass (and also self employed ass) being forced to purchase healthcare or be penalized with even more taxes i cant afford. figure it out jackasses, it seems like a number of other countries (and hawaii) can do it.