White House Reaction to Obamacare Ruling Being Unconstitutional … It’s Judicial Overreach

Yesterday, U.S. Federal District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional. The reaction from the White House was to call the ruling “judicial overreach”. The comment is rather comical seeing that even candidate Barack Obama thought that forcing individuals to purchase insurance was wrong. Actually WH, it was Congressional overreach and they did so against the will of the American people.

From Forbes comes the following White House reaction:

On the White House’s blog, spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter writes: “Today’s ruling – issued by Judge Vinson in the Northern District of Florida – is a plain case of judicial overreaching.” She continues: “Those who claim that the “individual responsibility” provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes “inactivity” are simply wrong. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us.”

The DOJ issued its own statement: “There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal.”

Obviously, it is not well-established legal precedent that Congress can pass a law to regulate non-activity. Ultimately this law will be presented before the SCOTUS and by a 5-4 decision will be struck down. Can “We the People” imagine what life would be like if at any time the federal government to dictate and mandate what you must buy or face the consequences? Why not mandate every one have life insurance, food insurance or that you must buy fruits and vegetables or else.

As stated by judge Vindon from Powerline:

Judge Vinson held that valid legislation under the Commerce Clause must regulate an “activity:”

It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. … If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only.

 What is the result of judge Vinson’s ruling … 47 Republican Senators sign on with Jin DeMint (SC-R) repeal bill.

The repeal of Obamacare and its movement through the appeal courts and on to the Supreme Court is setting up to be done just in time for the 2012 elections. Do Obama and Democrats really want Obamacare front and center as the main issue for 2012?