Multi-state anti-Democare suit catches up with Virginia’s
By D.J. McGuire | Friday, October 15th, 2010 | Policy
The lawsuit against Democare filed by twenty states and eagerly followed by all but one of the remaining thirty was allowed to go forward yesterday.
For those of us fortunate enough to call Virginia home, the decision was not breaking or urgent news. Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli had filed a similar suit on our behalf and got a similar green-light ruling two months ago. That said, I don’t remember Judge Henry Hudson tipping his cards on the evenutal ruling the way Judge Roger Vinson did here.
Vinson took aim at the Obama Administrations three-card-monty on the language of the health mandate (Washington Post):
??In his 65-page ruling, Vinson largely agreed with the 20 states and the National Federation of Independent Business, saying Congress was intentionally unclear when it created penalties in the legislation. The states have argued that Congress is overstepping its constitutional authority by penalizing people for not doing something – not buying health insurance.
The penalties for those who do not buy insurance are never referred to as taxes in the 2,700-page act, Vinson wrote. Attorneys for the Obama administration argued at a September hearing that the penalties should be considered a tax levied by Congress – as allowed by its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
“One could reasonably infer that Congress proceeded as it did specifically because it did not want the penalty to be ‘scrutinized’ as a $4 billion annual tax increase,” Vinson wrote.
“It seems likely that the members of congress merely called it a penalty and did not describe it as revenue-generating to try and insulate themselves from the potential electoral ramifications of their votes.”
That may mean bad news for the mandate. No wonder Cuccinelli himself chimed in on Vinson’s ruling (WaPo – as one would expect, he was quite happy).
Each case (and the one that went the other way in Michigan last week) is headed to the Supreme Court, meaning the entire ball of wax is likely dependent on the views of one person: the Reagan-appointed, recent Ninth Amendment devotee Anthony Kennedy.
I’d say Democare’s mandate is the underdog, but not by much.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Former candidate for Board of Supervisors in Spotsylvania, current blogger, economics teacher, and long-rumored windbag. There are two causes closest to the heart: steering the country away from the social democratic nonsense that is sinking Europe, and convincing the rest of the "rightosphere" that the NBA really is a joy to watch.
Comments
8 Responses to "Multi-state anti-Democare suit catches up with Virginia’s"
[...] Comments Multi-state anti-Dem… on Federal judge says Virginia la…Multi-state anti-Dem… on Federal judge says [...]
Which means Obamacare may fall thanks to George W. Bush beating Gore in Florida in 2000 and bringing us Alito and Roberts – the two most landmark decisions of the Bush era.
Which saddens me on several counts. Our lawmakers shouldn’t be forcing unconstitutional laws on us. It is pitiful that the constitutionality of a law isn’t clear enough or that judges don’t have enough integrity to to rule on it appropriately. Or that they simply want to impose their own views on society, rather than follow the contract…the Constitution. Finally, a system that effectively allows 9 individuals to be the ultimate decision makers on Constitionality is wrong. I think an amendment is in order (which is the current method to override the court), but it would be rather difficult to pass.
kingsmoothie,
I share your concern about judicial power, which is why I believe that we need judicial reform.
I also think that in this instance, the individual mandate is clearly in violation of the Constitution. Namely, that people have a right to not participate in a particular activity (i.e. buying health insurance), and any attempt to coerce people into participating in a particular activity unjustly is a violation of the Constitution. The Judiciary should act as a safeguard for the Constitution, helping to insure the original intent. So hopefully, in this instance, the judiciary will serve a positive role.
OK, you guys dislike Obama-care?
Perhaps you would prefer what I am in favor of, limited Socialized medicine.
If Obama-care is ruled unconstitutional, next time I roll through Las Vegas or Sparks Nevada I am going to seek placing a wager. I hear you can bet on anything in Las Vegas, so I am going to test to see if it is true.
The wager I will seek to make? If Obama-care is ruled unconstitutional, within 100 years the United States of America will have at least limited socialized medicine. I wonder what kind of odds I could get? It will be like taking candy away from a baby. I’ll feel sorry for the baby, but the baby shouldn’t have placed the bet.
If I am given better odds on a shorter duration of time, I might also be willing to place a smaller wager that it could happen while I am still alive. Longer odds, but with the right odds I might live long enough to reap the benefits myself.
Little David,
Socialized Medicine, by its very definition is rationalized. If you were to be old under such a system you would likely receive minimal care. You might receive the system, but it probably won’t work out so well for you.
The only self-regulated occupation controls every aspect of our government…and soon our lives. Federal judges determine how the US Military (DADT), seven million votes (Prop eight) or a state law (Arizona) is interpreted. Judges are not held accountable for their decisions.
If an appeal gets overturned, should the lower court pay some type of retribution? What about a bankruptcy from court costs? Should a person get reimbursed for a failed lawsuit? What’s the maximum amount of money a lawyer can milk from a case? Tort Reform was subsidized in the healthcare bill, we know this only increases the activity. This very institution expects that type of compensation from corporations and people who they deem negligent, so why aren’t they held to any type of responsibilities for their decisions?
And the Judicial system has infiltrated our military where it should never be…first with Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the 9/11 POW trials. The military should be allowed to self-regulate without civilian interference (i.e. lawyers, activist groups) because that’s why they fall under civilian leadership. As a military member, you give up your right to be an individual when you sign up…people’s lives depend on it. But lawyers feel that they must regulate that also.
Meanwhile, our hopes rest on lawyers and guess what…they hold no accountability for their decisions, except maybe sleep at night. Meanwhile, people lose their lives, their businesses, their status and you name it from the very court system that is to uphold it.
@LittleDavid,
If ObamaCare is struck down, I agree with you that universal healthcare will be in the US within the next 25 years (if not before). They waited 17 years to reintroduce HilaryCare and the Progressives have position themselves quite well.
This is all while the rest of the world is trying to crawl out from under the burden of socialized healthcare. We currently have a system that takes care of the unable, the problem is our progressive friends want us (and them to take credit) to take care of the unwilling.
Steven Osbourne,
Well I think it will have to be rationed if we are going to keep it limited. If you do not want to deal with the rationing, then buy a supplemental insurance policy. Rationing would be rational if we do not want to keep shoveling money down a bottomless pit.
John Jackson,
Yes, the uninsured receive coverage when they go to emergency room but that is the most expensive place for them to go to in order to get medical care. It has been a few years now, but I went into my Doctor’s office for some reason or other; while I was waiting to be seen, a little old lady was pushed in on her wheelchair. The receptionist turned her away because she was way behind on her bills (I’m not sure what the problem was, because I know my Doctor takes Medicare patients). The younger lady pushing the wheelchair asked the receptionist what were they to do? The receptionist recommended they go to the emergency room at the nearest hospital.
I keep hearing America spends the most per capita on medical care with the worst outcomes to show for it. I will not deny that if you are wealthy and money is no object, yes, you probably can get the best medical care available here when compared to anywhere in the world. But if you throw in all those with no health care coverage or only poor coverage into the mix our resultant average falls through the floor.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.