BREAKING: Florida judge strikes down parts of health care reform

[gauguin57]

Source: CNN

(CNN) - A federal judge in Florida has struck down key parts of the sweeping health care reform bill championed by President Barack Obama as unconstitutional. Officials in Florida and 25 other states are challenging sections of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the "individual mandate" requiring most American to purchase health insurance in four years, or face stiff penalties.

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/31/breaking-florida-judge-strikes-down-parts-of-health-care-reform/

[monmouth]

1. I wonder the name of the judge, the county...Lousy reporting by CNN...

[Dave From Canada]

2. Slate has more information on it...

The decision is out now, and Judge Roger Vinson has basically struck down the entire health care bill. I'll post the decision when I get it.

The money graf, in which Vinson strikes down the entire law -- which, because of the mess in the Senate and House, lacked severability:


Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/31/florida-district-court-rules-against-health-care-reform.aspx

[monmouth]

63. Many thanks...n/t

[texastoast]

3. Ah, Florida

I was expecting Texas.

[russspeakeasy]

14. Nope. We're crazier than Texas.

[BobbyBoring]

49. Got more cows too!

[texastoast]

51. Probably so

We're busy paving all the old farms and ranches to make room for all the nutters moving here.

[lib2DaBone]

75. Florida elected Rick Scott.. he ripped off $1.9 Billion from medicare

...and his punishment?

The Repukes elected him Governor...

[Blasphemer]

4. The individual mandate was always going to become a SCOTUS issue

I am very curious about how the gang of five will rule on it.

[alsame]

9. Agree, it was always the most problematic aspect of the bill. nt

[MisterP]

48. that's what happens when you pass a bill that blatantly hands Americans over

to big insurance: you'll get called on it
of course, if the correct party does it, everyone will delude themselves that any attack on the WellPoint mandate will take away teh healthcare!!!1111

[Broderick]

53. Medicare for all

would have passed this obstacle. Single payer. imo.

[derby378]

72. I'm gonna grab the barstool next to you

:toast:

[sendero]

82. I agree..

.... this effort was doomed from the beginning and I can't say I'm surprised to see the courts don't like it.

It will go to the Supreme Court now and does anyone here really think it has any sort of chance there?

Obama should have stuck to the original plan, now we get nothing at all.

[Uncle Joe]

85. The majority of the SC are corporate supremacists so I believe they will find a way to uphold

the law whether it's Constitutional or not.

[sendero]

87. That is an interesting point..

... we'll have to wait and see if their partisanship overrules their corporatism.

[Uncle Joe]

88. I believe corporate supremacy to be the true dominant dynamic driving American Politics.

The partisanship BS is a divide and conquer tactic used more as a means to obtain those corporate supremacist ends.

I believe the SC's majority "partisanship" stands a snowball's chance in hell of overriding their corporatism.

[sendero]

89. Well, I would certainly not disagree..

.... and there would be no better proof than the SCOTUS holding that Obamacare is constitutional.

[gauguin57]

5. I'm sure that'll be on the site in a few minutes ... this was basically the breaking-news bulletin.

I'll post more when I see it.

[Botany]

6. A republican judge .... what a surprise

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/82471/affordable-care-act-constitutional-ruling-today

And the judge, a Reagan appointee ....

[Judi Lynn]

17. You're right, it's a shocker, isn't it? Thanks for the link. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. It will be appealed of course. But the five Republicans in the USSC will have the final say

[wilt the stilt]

7. This is great

pre existing conditions are back.

[warrior1]

8. one man

should not be able to take away health care from 90 million american's

[CLANG]

73. It won't. It will be 5 evil men.

[madamesilverspurs]

10. Danged activist judges, legislating from the bench... n/t

[seafan]

11. Fla. judge strikes down health overhaul

Via WP:


The Associated Press
Monday, January 31, 2011; 3:10 PM

PENSACOLA, Fla. -- A federal judge in Florida says the Obama administration's health overhaul is unconstitutional, siding with 26 states that had sued to block it.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson on Monday accepted without trial the states' argument that the new law violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

Attorneys for the administration had argued that the states did not have standing to challenge the law and that the case should be dismissed.

The case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement, but a federal judge in Virginia also ruled the insurance requirement unconstitutional.

[gauguin57]

12. It's Judge Roger Vinson ... more from AP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013103804.html
Fla. judge strikes down health overhaul

The Associated Press

PENSACOLA, Fla. -- A federal judge in Florida says the Obama administration's health overhaul is unconstitutional, siding with 26 states that had sued to block it.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson on Monday accepted without trial the states' argument that the new law violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

Attorneys for the administration had argued that the states did not have standing to challenge the law and that the case should be dismissed.

The case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement, but a federal judge in Virginia also ruled the insurance requirement unconstitutional.

[Judi Lynn]

13. Thank you, gauguin57. Not unexpected, as the right-wing will fight like madmen to prevent progress.

In the end, they will lose, no matter how many crooked, dirty ones there are who will assist their short-term goals.

[LawnLover]

15. This means absolutely nothing

Even the mandate will stay in. Are we going to get rid of the medicare mandate, too? Is that unconstitutional?

Move on. Nothing to see here.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Yep. Taxes taken out of each and everyone of our checks to pay for Medicare........

and yet, those attempting to call the mandate unconstitutional, don't mention
this.

[Shrek]

50. I'll mention it

Medicare is funded by tax revenue, which Congress is indisputably empowered to collect.

A mandate to purchase a commercial product from a corporate entity, not so much.

[LynneSin]

18. So I think I'm gonna sue for the right to not purchase car insurance

I mean I haven't had a wreck in 10 years so why should I waste $1200 a year on car insurance

:eyes:

[former9thward]

45. The mandate is the problem here.

Car insurance is mandated by the state not the federal government. The HCR bill is federal and comes under the federal constitution. It is argued and I think with good authority that the federal government can't mandate purchases from a private company.

[sweetapogee]

64. the details matter...

very well said.

[Broderick]

54. You are not mandated to buy vehicle coverage

if you have no car.

I say a single universal coverage and payer is back on the table vs. us being forced to pay insurance companies. Now, I am not that well versed on this whole heathcare thing as written because it is so complicated, but for some reason I am believing the insurance companies are loving the bill as written. Why doesn't the federal government just universally give everyone healthcare as a medicare type thing and put this to bed. Because the insurance companies want the pie, not just a piece...

[Dave From Canada]

56. Bad analogy. Nobody forces you to buy a car.

[pezDispenser]

60. you don't have to purchase car insurance n/t

[Judi Lynn]

19. "Letter to the Editor: Repealing health care legislation will do more harm than good"

Letter to the Editor: Repealing health care legislation will do more harm than good

By Mike Madden, [e-mail]

Published Jan. 28, 2011

Tags:Letter to the Editor
In response to Taeler De Haes's Column 'Repeal the Job-Killing Bill'.

President Barack Obama's health care bill is certain to animate discussions on constitutionality and spending. Florida Federal Judge Vinson's ruling provides a Libertarian-like rebuttal to the Democrats, stating that the decision not to buy insurance does not constitute "interstate commerce" and therefore the government lacks power to compel you to do something you do not want to do. However, it is the case that Democratic judicial appointees have sided in favor of the health care law, and Republican appointees have done the same for their side. After all, Judge Vinson was appointed by President Reagan in 1983. Judge George Steeh from Detroit who sided in favor of the new law, was appointed by President Clinton in 1998. It would also be interesting to see whether or not the new Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan will recuse herself from the bench if a challenge to the health care law reaches that far in the judiciary. She is under pressure from the right to recuse and she is also pressured by the left not to recuse.

To Congressional matters, if the Republicans wish to repeal the new health care law, they should better understand the possible consequences. As Mitt Romney understood in Massachusetts, as John Chafee, Bob Dole and the Heritage Foundation's Stuart Butler understood, the reason for the individual mandate is that President Obama would like to achieve universal coverage through a private insurance system. Anyone who understands the insurance market knows that you cannot allow consumers to buy insurance whenever they want to, because you will end up with people who wait to get sick until they buy (mainly due to today's high prices, the loss of jobs, and the lagging economy). The new health care law, with the individual mandate, was designed to preserve private insurance and to get universal coverage while providing security to the American citizenry in various ways (eliminating pre-existing conditions, lowering prescription drug costs for seniors, staying on parents' insurance until age 26, etc). If the 2012 elections belong to the Democrats, and if Obamacare's individual mandate is overturned, this issue is most likely to focus on single payer insurance, meaning the last laugh belongs to the left if passed.

If the law is fully repealed, the Republicans might lose members of a key constituency: senior citizens. Seniors would find it difficult to get the prescriptions they need. In theory, seniors would have to return the rebate check, according to the Chief Actuary for the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid services. Also, adding $230 billion, a Congressional Budget Office estimate, to the deficit as a result of repeal would hurt the Republicans' "saving money" position. The best option for the Republicans is they should try to correct the items in Obamacare they want to see changed, rather than repeal the entire law and accuse Obamacare proponents of being "socialists". Harsh, unfounded political rancor distracts us from the real problems. The results of full repeal: seniors and taxpayers will lose, the reputation of the Republican Party is compromised, and insurance companies would have the go-ahead to screw over patients with their fatal pre-existing condition policies.

http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2011/1/28/repealing-health-care-legislation-will-do-more-har/

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Fdereal Judge rules entire Health Care Reform law to be unconstitutional

Source: United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida

No news article yet, links goes to text of ruling.

Read more: http://www.scribd.com/doc/47905280/vinsonruling1-31-11

[tabatha]

21. So what follows next -

repeal of driver's licenses?

[notesdev]

33. That would be pretty cool actually

no more "your papers please" would be a step in the right direction

[madamesilverspurs]

22. Danged activist judges, legislating from the bench... n/t

[BlueDemKev]

23. Well put.

[ChazII]

67. Agreed. n/t

[LiberalLoner]

24. So...this goes up to the Supreme Court and then...any guesses from there? n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. It would likely go to the Court of Apperals for that circuit first

[AngryAmish]

28. talk about the fashion police!

you have been found to be...tacky...

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Doh!

:dunce:

Once again, spell-check fails me!

[AngryAmish]

44. all in good fun, my friend.

[Drale]

27. Well if they rule it to be constitutional the righties will be up their asses mad

while if they rule it unconstitutional basically we are fucked because it would just be feeding the notion that tea baggers have that ever law the Democrats pass is unconstitutional.

[MineralMan]

25. District Judge. It goes to the Appeals Court of that circuit, then

to consideration by the circuit court en banc. Finally, it would go to the Supreme Court. A very long process.

[LiberalLoner]

39. Thanks, everyone, I have no clue about the judicial process I'm afraid. n/t

[qb]

29. Single-payer wouldn't be unconstitutional... would it?

I hope that's where this leads.

[ehrnst]

32. Medicare is constitutional. A public option would be. (nt)

[Broderick]

55. That's the way I see it.

[Yupster]

77. If it's funded by tax revenue then it

is within the powers of congress.

The problem is Obama said over and over that this was not a tax. Now he's arguing in court that it is a tax.

If it's ruled a tax, it's Constitutional.

If it's ruled a government enforcement to buy a commercial product, then it's unconstitutional.

Can the government force everyone to buy red socks? a car from General Motors?

Obviously not.

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be

declared void."

From page 76 of the ruling. Wow.

[ehrnst]

31. The judge clearly has no knowledge of Sarbanes-Oxley

"The unconstitutional tenure provisions are severable from the remainder of the statute. Because "he unconstitutionality of a part of an Act does not necessarily defeat or affect the validity of its remaining provisions"… the "normal rule" is "that partial… invalidation is the required course."

Sarbanes-Oxley stands, so can the rest of HCR.

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/28/sarbanes-oxley-survives Edited to add link

[Recursion]

35. Except HCR doesn't have a severance clause

And, also, the regulations on private insurers simply won't work without a mandate, so the whole thing would have to come down anyways.

[underpants]

37. Neither did Sarbanes-Oxley

From Talking Points primer on severability

The obscure term of art here is "severability".

Quite often, legislators include what's known as a "severability clause" in their bills. These are meant to protect the bulk of a law in the event that a small portion of it is determined to be unconstitutional. That small portion must go, or be changed, but pretty much everything else is allowed to stand.

In a sin of omission, Democrats left such a clause out of the health care law, and now the plaintiffs in at least one of the cases against it want the court to take an axe to the whole thing if the judge decides that the individual mandate provision is unconstitutional.

The good news for supporters of the ACA, according to one leading expert on the reform plan and the suits against it, is that -- even under the worst case scenario -- most of the law will likely remain intact. The bad news is that some of its most important and popular provisions could become ensnared by a ruling against the mandate, and nixed by the court.

Jost says recent precedent makes it exceptionally unlikely that any of the lower courts will attempt to strike the entire law. In an opinion written this year, Chief Justice John Roberts struck one provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, which lacks a severability clause. "We agree with the Government that the unconsti­tutional tenure provisions are severable from the remain­der of the statute," he wrote.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/conservative-suit-against-the-mandate.php

[sweetapogee]

66. without a mandate

without having a mandate there would not be near enough money in the plan to fund it. It lives or dies based on a mandate.

[FogerRox]

81. I think Roberts loves Severabality

So does Roberts come down on the side of severability, also on behalf of the insurance companies who want to make money?

[underpants]

36. Dems did put (or Repubs kept out) a severability clause but read the reply to your post below

in the oddest twist Chief Justice John Roberts already removed the need for a severability clause in a ruling on Sarbanes-Oxley

[FBaggins]

83. They didn't "remove the need for a severability clause"

It's possible for parts of a bill to stand without such a clause, it isn't required. With a severability clause, the judge wouldn't have the option to overturn the entire bill... just the parts that he argues are unconstitutional. He specifically said that some parts of it were within the Congress' power to legislate.

[tomm2thumbs]

34. If the ruling stands that parts are unconstitutional, and the House refuses to amend it...

... sounds like the entire thing would be at risk. If Congress doesn't vote to amend the problem areas which are drawing the attention in the ruling, it seems like the entire thing could go down then, but I honestly can't see that as the only avenue. Perhaps individual elements of the health care law can be struck down by the court without negating the entire law.

[ehrnst]

40. Here's a round up of stories throughout the media:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2011/January/31/florida-ruling-multistate-challenge.aspx

[savalez]

90. Reagan's solicitor General says it's constitutional.

Reagan's Solicitor General Charles Fried: "I Am Quite Sure That The Health Care Mandate Is Constitutional"

http://www.truth-out.org/reagans-solicitor-general-charles-fried-i-am-quite-sure-that-the-health-care-mandate-is-constitution

[digitaln3rd]

41. Thank goodness we can still carry guns and the CEOs are wealthy.

Citizens having access to affordable healthcare? Can't have THAT in America, though.

[Dave From Canada]

58. Citizens having access to affordable healthcare is one thing. Forcing them to BUY a PRIVATE service

is much different.

[pezDispenser]

61. my healthcare went up again this year

just like it does every year, only difference was this increase was in the ballpark of $130 a month. This healthcare bill did nothing to lower the cost of employee sponsered healthcare.

[Judi Lynn]

42. Florida Judge Roger Vinson Rules Health Care Reform Unconstitutional

Florida Judge Roger Vinson Rules Health Care Reform Unconstitutional
BY: S.K. Neff

Published: January 31, 2011

http://www.politicallyillustrated.com.nyud.net:8090/images/uploads/ph-health-care-reform.jpg

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled ‘The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,’” said Mr. Vinson in his decision to strike down the entire law.

The ruling comes as more than 25 states are challenging specific sections of the law, including the “individual mandate” that requires most everyone to purchase health insurance.

The Obama administration had argued that the states did not have standing to officially challenge the law, but Mr. Vinson disagreed, allowing the case to continue.

The case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“This is unbelievable,” Rick Newman, a resident of San Francisco, told Politically Illustrated. “Republicans have overturned legislation by a people-voted Congress with a handful of conservative judges.”

http://politicallyillustrated.com/index.php?/news_page/iw/2311/

[DreamSmoker]

46. This Judge is a Reaganite

Once I found this out it explains why......
The judge who made this ruling was a Reagan appointee..
Now add that fact that the deck is stacked by this kind of tactic...
Now Our justice system has been corrupted politically.. All judges are on one side the other.. Based on political appointments..
So he who has the most judges in their pocket.. WINS....

[SomeGuyInEagan]

47. So, does this next go to SCOTUS? n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

57. No, to the Court of Appeals first

[pezDispenser]

62. any idea of the timeframe on that?

also, if any of the provisions of the bill should be or come to be active w/o it being appealed - does that mean they are not enforceable?

[savalez]

74. Read this story for info on that

particularly the last few paragraphs.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/January/31/florida-ruling-health-law-stuart-taylor.aspx

[kudzu22]

76. They could bypass the appellate level and go straight to SCOTUS

if all parties agree. I kinda hope that's what they do because everyone knows it's going there anyway.

[aquart]

52. Florida.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[underpants]

65. Vinson's math

“If impact on interstate commerce were to be expressed and calculated mathematically, the status of being uninsured would necessarily be represented by zero. Of course, any other figure multiplied by zero is also zero. Consequently, the impact must be zero, and of no effect on interstate commerce.” Caring for the uninsured, in other words, is free and creates no cost shifts throughout the system.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/31/florida-ruling/

[Kingofalldems]

68. Thanks Joe Lieberman!!

Who could support this man? :shrug:

[MasonJar]

69. According to NPR, he struck down the whole act. The plaintifs

shopped for him because they knew he favored their side

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KT2000]

71. One of the plaintiffs lives

in my community. He is a 51 year old who has been retired several years from being a NY investment banker. He has a wife and two children. He has not purchased health insurance for 6 years and does not want to. He is wealthy enough to cover such costs on his own.
He is a libertarian ass who wants to make sure those who cannot afford it do not get health care I guess.

I have decided to void my organ donor status. I am about to lose my insurance next month. I do not want my organs going to people like this man and the republicans.

[M155Y_A1CH]

78. Shall we dance the U.S. waltz?

One step forward, two steps back.

[Democat]

79. Right wing activist judge?

I'm sure you'll be hearing about that in the media.

[alp227]

80. however, many challenges to HCR have been rejected too

Not to mention that Republicans originated the individual mandate.

"New frontiers in partisan judging" --Steve Benen

[spinbaby]

84. The judge is a tea partier

"It is difficult to imagine," Vinson said, "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."

Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/01/31/1844452/federal-judge-says-health-care.html#ixzz1CiY91OC1

[panzerfaust]

86. So, had "we" simply gone with the Public Option

at least this particular interstate commerce based challenge would have been avoided.



Of course, the Public Option was only relevant if the basic idea was to provide, as in all other First World nations, universal access to healthcare.