Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pa. federal judge rules against insurance mandate

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 01:20 PM
Original message
Pa. federal judge rules against insurance mandate
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer

President Obama's plan to require individual Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty exceeds the powers granted both the president and Congress by the Constitution, a federal district court judge ruled Tuesday in Harrisburg

Federal District Judge Christopher C. Connor said the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce does not give it the power to compel individual citizens to purchase products against their will.

"The nation undoubtably faces a health-care crisis," Conner said. "Scores of individuals are uninsured and the costs to all citizens are measurable and significant.

“The federal government, however, is one of limited enumerated powers,” Conner continued, “and Congress' efforts to remedy the ailing health care and health insurance markets must fit squarely within the boundaries of those powers."

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20110913_ap_pafederaljudgerulesagainstinsurancemandate.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. You know, I originally thought the mandate would survive...
howvere there have been enough rulings against it to make me rethink it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. And there have been several rulings upholding it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. 90% of people agree.
Exchange "health insurance" for "sonogram."

:think:



SP gets rid of that horseshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
4. GW Bush nominee
apparently i found a website advocating impeaching this judge, www.impeachjudgeconner.com.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I was looking for that but it wasn't included in the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoapBox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I was immediately wondering the background and political affiliation of this judge...
Edited on Tue Sep-13-11 01:52 PM by SoapBox
Seems that the GOPBagger judges cannot separate their political support from their job any more.

If anyone else finds info on this guy, PLEASE post!

From that website:

Who is Judge Christopher C. Conner?

Christopher C. Conner was born in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1957 and is currently a United States federal judge. He received a J.D. from Dickenson School of Law in 1982 and was in a private practice of law in Pennsylvania from 1982 to 2002. He was an Adjunct professor at Widener University School of Law in 2000.

Conner is a federal judge to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Conner was nominated by President George W. Bush on February 28, 2002, to a seat vacated by Sylvia H. Rambo. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on July 26, 2002, and received his commission on July 29, 2002.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. lots of liberals agree with this ruling...
...including myself. If there's a bipartisan perspective to be had anywhere in the health care reform debate, this is it: kill the commercial insurance mandate!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24601 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Yeah, right - he differs from your view - so it must be his partisan
leanings - and yours of course are purely constitutional.

When you have no valid argument on the issue - attack the motives of individual.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. He struck down pre-existing conditions exclusions also.
"While most of the massive law can remain intact, Conner said, certain provisions are linked to the health insurance requirement and must also be struck down. Those provisions are designed to guarantee that insurance companies cannot discriminate against or deny coverage to the sick or people with pre-existing conditions."

It is just one judge. Doesn't mean anything. This will get decided by the USSC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahatmakanejeeves Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
8. Health insurance is not the same thing as health care.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JJW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
9. The right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness
preclude the Government making anyone buy a for-profit corporate product.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Then all school supplies should be free of charge
School is mandated by Law and yet parents have to purchase school supplies such as papers and pencils and notebooks etc.... They are all required products purchased from private companies...What's the difference? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. false equivalency....
In fact you are not required to buy school supplies. You can send your children to school without pencils, paper, or other tools for learning. Many parents do. Their children suffer. Some schools or school districts might even send them home once or twice. I suppose some might even discipline them for consistent refusal to acquire the tools necessary to learn. But THERE IS NO LAW REQUIRING YOU TO BUY SCHOOL SUPPLIES.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. At least one State Court has said the cost to the go to school MUST be 100% Free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
10. so we should`t be forced into paying for social security/medicare....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. worse than an utter straw man....
You're just making shit up. This ruling has exactly ZERO to do with either SS or Medicare. Zero. Nada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. i`m on social security and medicare in december.
i would`t put it past a rabid republican to say the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-13-11 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
15. let's face the obvious here...
The Affordable Care Act, and any other legislation the neocons intend to judicially rail against over the next few years, will take effect looking like whatever the SCOTUS says it looks like.

That SCOTUS is, for the most part, of similar composition to the SCOTUS that appointed GWBush to his first term in 2001.

Adjust your expectations accordingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 05:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC