RSSFlorida Federal Judge Roger Vinson to Rule on Obamacare Constitutionality Today
Could today be another legal blow to Obamacare?
Florida Judge Roger Vinson of the US District Court in Pensacola is expected to rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare today. The plaintiffs represent 25 other U.S. states. From Reuters comes the following:
A Florida judge could on Monday become the second U.S. judge to declare President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law unconstitutional, in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.
The judge, Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola, Florida, was expected to rule on a lawsuit brought by governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans. Obama is a Democrat.
The plaintiffs represent more than half the U.S. states, so the Pensacola case has more prominence than some two dozen lawsuits filed in federal courts over the healthcare law.
Will the Florida judge follow suit with the recent ruling in Virginia? Last month, a federal district judge in Richmond, Virginia struck down that central provision of the law in a case in that state, saying it invited an “unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”
Kathleen Sebelius Compares Right to Health Care With Right to Own TV, what?
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of HHS when asked recently where in the US Constitution the government had a right to make people buy insurance said, “she was not a lawyer …”. She basically was unable to defend the very law that she is supposed to be in charge of. What? How is some one in charge of the government take over of health care and not able to defend the government’s position? Sebelius punted to the attorneys. Ever wonder what is wrong with Washington? To make matters even more bizarre, Sebelius compared the right to own healthcare to that of a TV. WTF!!!
Isn’t it a choice to own a TV, not a government mandate?
Posted January 31, 2011 by Scared Monkeys Barack Obama, Bizarre, Government, Healthcare, Judicial, Legal - Court Room - Trial, Obamacare, Obamanation, US Constitution, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | 26 comments |
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
26 Responses to “Florida Federal Judge Roger Vinson to Rule on Obamacare Constitutionality Today”
Leave a Reply
If I can focus on one simple matter of law in this and prior lawsuits, it would be the question of legal standing.
From my understanding, I don’t see how any state can claim they are harmed by the prime argument of their cases, that of the individual mandate. I also don’t see that the state has a legal obligation (or right) to use its resources to protect its’ individual citizens as it appears to be doing.
Are there any legal brains that can shed light on this question?
No-Accounts showing up at Emergency Rooms today get treated
and someone else get’s hit with the bill. No-Accounts under
ObamaCare will show up at Emergency Rooms and Doctor’s offices
and their insurance bill and perhaps co-pay will both be foisted on
someone else; namely the working taxpayer!
The US Govt./Congress can not require/force/mandate citizens to purchase anything. No car ins is not the same, if you don’t have a car you don’t need the ins, or if you are an illegal in CA. you don’t need ins.
1. I have a right to a TV? Where is it?
2. Steve: I surely am not a legal brain (though I worked as a paralegal for over 10 years), but first, yes, a state does have a mandate to protect its citizens from Federalism.
Why does the Attorney General of a state go after people committing fraud in their state? Because they are suppose to protect their citizens.
How on earth can the federal government have the power to mandate that a citizen purchase a product? If they do – then you must purchase a GM car because we need to bail out GM and the government holds most of the stock.
Yes, it does indeed use state resources because the Obama Care law mandates that states set up pools of insurance. There are also other mandates on the States in this law.
Another costly thing to states is that Obama Care kills jobs. Without jobs, the states have to pay unemployment insurance (the feds only kick in SOME) and lose revenue from those who would be paying state taxes.
I’m sure there are more arguments but that’s enough for now.
This is most unconstitutional law that run’s totally against our founding fathers principles, of self determination, and liberty.
A person’s health care is personal chose and responsibility, in fact the bottom line is I a tax payer should not be forced to provide care to anyone, including the dead beat fed’s that do not not pay the bill’s they owe in full either. so the tax payer and the responsible 80% of American’s that do ,and work hard to provide health insurance for their families, now will have to pay twice to four times, new taxes, old taxes, New federal debt and interest.
and this law requires my doctor to give my private health information to the fed’s .
my life, my health, my responsibility and my doc patient privileges.
#4,
Hard to tell if you are responding to my question, but in case you are, a few comments in response.
Fraud is a crime due to statutes that define it as illegal. Are you saying there are specific existing law(s) to define HCR as illegal? Which one(s)?
Regarding pools of insurance: I’m not aware of that aspect being presented in the suit, nor in the judges ruling. This appears to be all about the so-called “mandate.” I can’t name specifics, but the idea of unfunded Federal mandates being applied to the States has been used before.
The notion of “killing jobs”, something so clumsily proclaimed by the GOP ad infinitum, has no basis in reality. I’ve yet to see a credible claim that was anything more than political rhetoric.
To be honest, I was not looking for any arguments; I was looking for information on “standing”, as I clearly asked about.
Medicare insurance has been required since 1965, and President John Adams, one of the founders, approved a plan requiring non-military sailors to buy health insurance or face a fine. This is clearly within the mandate of the federal govenment. The Supreme Court will uphold Health Care Reform.
The Judge has ruled! UNCONSTITUTIONAL due to federal mandate!
I have no clue why the Judge’s ruling contained the following: “The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, . . .”.
I fail to see why this information, whether accurate or not, has any bearing on the suit. It sounds like some of the political positioning in the general debate on the ACA.
I really don’t think the ruling would be any different if the statistic was any different number, and I wonder what it’s message is here.
If the ruling was different, I’d not feel this appropriate. Would those in favor of the ruling see it as odd if the Judge had affirmed the law?
To clarify, I meant:
Would those in favor of the current ruling see this phrase as odd, if the Judge had instead affirmed the law?
Steve:
Another blow for the Obama Administration today as Us Federal Judge declares Health Care Plan Unconstitutional:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-ruling-20110201,0,5516563.story
Also would like to point out that my State, Massachusetts, is a perfect example of a mandated plan gone wrong. While I do like Mitt Romney, unfortunately we have him to thank for that. Should he decide to run next year, I wonder how that will affect his standing as this is a sensitive issue for most Americans.
Not only have the costs in Mass increased Statewide, it is nearly impossible for the small Business Owner trying to survive to be able to even afford a plan. There have been numerous cases where such individuals have even been penalized. Without getting in to much more detail, I will sum it up for you in one word:
FAILURE
I’m sure he has a plan to desensitize the issue with voters; as a Republican, he can just lie and say he’s not in favor of that style of health care law.
[...] As speculated earlier today, a second judge has ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled today that President Barack Hussein Obama’s health care law is unconstitutional. To add insult to “health care” injury, the federal judge used Obama’s past words against him. [...]
Steve: I provided you information. You simply didn’t like it and therefore called it “arguments”.
Whether it was in the ruling or not, you asked HOW states had the standing to protect their citizens. I pointed out to you that states will have to spend money (which you originally claimed was not true) to set up insurance pools required by ObamaCare. And yes, ObamaCare KILLS jobs (as SEIU noted when they ran and got waivers) because if employers MUST provide insurance (and note it’s not just any insurance but government mandated specifics which will be extremely costly (including abortion), they can’t hire as many people.
The US Government cannot FORCE people to purchase insurance simply because they are US citizens. Someone mentioned “non-military sailors” and miss the point – there’s a choice – don’t be a “non-military sailor” (whatever the heck that is) and you don’t have to buy insurance. In the case of ObamaCare, EVERY citizen (by mere virtue of birth) is required to purchase insurance. You can choose not to drive and then do not have to purchase auto insurance.
Steve: While the judge mentioned that health care is 1/6th of the economy, that’s not WHY his ruling is what it is. Rulings often contain extraneous information so that one can understand the entire subject matter. In this case he was simply telling us the magnitude of this take-over attempt.
You love ObamaCare. That’s WONDERFUL. Go buy you some! But now tell me why I should have to subsidize YOUR medical insurance – especially since I don’t get to rule your life and tell you whether you can drive a motorcycle or climb mountains, smoke, or other engage in risky behaviors.
There are many butt sitters in this world who would view the doctor’s office (and already treat emergency rooms) as a new outing for their 15 children should it become “free” for them. Working people would like to see their doctor but won’t have the opportunity because they can’t declare a day’s outing just to see him.
Your comments were not published on my blog because the blog did not pick them up (though I received them in email) – I’ll have to check the DB to try to find them and publish.
__________________
SM: Obamacare will lose in the courts. Imagine if this hiddeous precedent was set just for Obamacare. The govt could force every one to buy OJ and vitamins if that was the case. Why stop at health insurance, the govt would nandate all to buy life insurance.
The commerce clause does not allow the regulation of inactivity. How can the govt regualte some one not doing something? The answer is, it can’t.
R
#14,
I’m going to respond to you by paragraph number, to minimize text duplication. Since, for some reason the entire response will not post, I’m forced to use multiple submissions to provide you a reply.
Red: Sorry for the hassle; I wish it just worked with one post.
#14,
p#1: I asked a question on Legal Standing; Your reply referred to “arguments”. My later reply echoed your wording of “arguments”. At no time did I say anything about “not liking” what you said. I may have offered responses raising questions or my observations on the statements, but that is not the same as “not liking”.
You: I’m sure there are more arguments but that’s enough for now.
Me: To be honest, I was not looking for any arguments; I was looking for information on “standing“, as I clearly asked about.
p#2: You replied to “the standing“, which doesn’t exactly sound like “legal standing “. In any case, what you then said here doesn’t seem to refer to “standing“, as far as I can tell.
I’m not sure how this belief about “states not spending money” originated, but claiming I spoke of this is inaccurate.
Red, I can’t get anything to appear as submitted, yet I can get duplicate message errors if I try the same text again. This happens in IE and Chrome. Help!
_____________
SM: I am not quite sure what the issue is unless your comments are occurring so fast that they are being considered a duplicate. I have noticed dup comments in the spam folder at times, although it appears to only be happening with you. There are no liberal spam filters here
R
I love this ruling.
no man can and should be forced in a free country to buy anything, including insurance, by any requirement of the federal government.
the states have the only right acording to the people that they serve to enact any such laws requiring insurance.
The federal government has acted morally irresponsible and has taken more power then it should have at any time.
Medicaid is also in its entirety, unconstitutional, and should be removed from the power of the federal government and no tax should ever rise from such a gross overbearance of the government upon the people.
Red,
Good to hear you’ve seen things in the spam folder (proof it’s really happening), it was after I resubmitted when nothing showed up. Can you check to see if these duplicate posts even appear once? Are there any that are not dupes?
If you will respond via the “contact us” method, I can take this off-list (I’m only trying to reach you as best I know how, not the list).
Thx
BTW: I’ve never claimed any kind of liberal spam filter. I’m clueless what is going on, yet it continues to happen sometimes.
#20- Tip on the missing posts…I know awhile back our wonderful Klaasend (Site Moderator) pointed out that if ons uses alot of symbols, special characters or other things moderations in postings- the spam filter recognizes them as spam and they have a tendency to end up there.
It does happen quite a bit, but it’s nothing personal. I feel like more of a pain in the butt by having to keep asking Klaas or Red check the spam folder, no matter how I type. 10 times out of 10, they are rescued and reposted.
Thanks, hope that helps
#14,
p#2: [cont]
This is what I could find on SEIU waivers: “No other provision of the Affordable Care Act is affected by these waivers: they only apply to the annual limit policy. Approved applicants are granted an annual limit waiver for one year.” If you have credible evidence on the losing jobs claim, that would be interesting.
Me: the question of legal standing.
You: Whether it was in the ruling or not, you asked HOW states had the standing to protect their citizens.
Me: I’ve yet to see a credible claim (regarding losing jobs)
You: ObamaCare KILLS jobs (as SEIU noted . .)
Me: Regarding pools of insurance: I’m not aware of that aspect being presented in the suit, nor in the judges ruling. This appears to be all about the so-called “mandate.”
You: to set up insurance pools required by ObamaCare
#14,
p2: [cont.]
This is what I could find on SEIU waivers: “No other provision of the Affordable Care Act is affected by these waivers: they only apply to the annual limit policy. Approved applicants are granted an annual limit waiver for one year.” If you have credible evidence on the losing jobs claim, that would be interesting.
Me: the question of legal standing.
You: Whether it was in the ruling or not, you asked HOW states had the standing to protect their citizens.
Me: I’ve yet to see a credible claim (regarding losing jobs)
You: ObamaCare KILLS jobs (as SEIU noted . .)
Me: Regarding pools of insurance: I’m not aware of that aspect being presented in the suit, nor in the judges ruling. This appears to be all about the so-called “mandate.”
You: to set up insurance pools required by ObamaCare
p3: AFAIK, and forgive me for stating the obvious, this is the main question raised by the law suits. Having an opinion is fine, yet has no effect on the outcome. In any case, this is really outside the question I raised in my comment, so I decline to respond.
p4: Well, one may think that is his reason for mentioning it, but there is no evidence supporting it. I think my comment said it best here: “ I really don’t think the ruling would be any different if the statistic was any different number, and I wonder what it’s message is here.”
p5: I’ve not made an emotional claim on ObamaCare: You’ll have to prove I said that to be credible on this.
p6: This is far outside the question I raised in my comment, so I decline to respond.
p7: I appreciate the updated information; Thanks!!!
#14 Katablog – Tell me why I should have to subsidize YOUR medical insurance – especially since I don’t get to rule your life and tell you whether you can drive a motorcycle or climb mountains, smoke, or other engage in risky behaviors.
It’s only fair to ask you the same question you are asking others, no?
Knowing his judicial past, I’m shocked you are a big fan of Judge Vinson Katablog.
“If Judge Vinson could be so wrong when denying veterans the promises made to them by the government, it is more than difficult to see why should we believe he is so right in his interpretation of the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.”
http://tinyurl.com/6bxguqf
Thanks in advance.
[...] “Florida Federal Judge Roger Vinson to Rule on Obamacare Constitutionality Today” and re… (scaredmonkeys.com) [...]
simple solution: let the democrats and liberals pay for obamacare and leave the rest of us alone. let the demolibs open their own free clinics for the minorities and illegals. they must be too ignorant to realize that the minorities and illegals are already receiving free healthcare. a lot of white people too !
the blacks have had this figured out for years and have been raping the taxpayer forever. they refer to themselves as the bread winner of the family. have 8 kids, fatherless of course. than hjave the grandmother declare to child protective services that the mother is unfit . then these kids will go to foster homes. of course, the grandmother then offers to take these 8 kids on at $1500.00 A month. for you liberal democrats, thats $12,000.00 a month of the taxpayer money wasted on fraud. this fraud has been going on for decades but the government turns a blind eye to it. the real losersare the kids because they do not benefit one dime of this money since the grandmother, the daughter, and the several fathers all waste this money on drugs, booze, cars, and clothes for themselves.