Breaking: Federal judge refuses to dismiss Virginia challenge to ObamaCare

posted at 11:35 am on August 2, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The federal bench giveth … and the federal bench taketh away.  Federal judge Henry Hudson has refused to dismiss a challenge from Virginia on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in ObamaCare.  The case will have to move to trial, and could imperil the entire overhaul:

A judge on Monday refused to dismiss the state of Virginia’s challenge to President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law, a setback that will force his administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the overhaul effort.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson refused to dismiss the state’s lawsuit which argues the law’s requirement that its residents have health insurance was unconstitutional, allowing the challenge to go forward.

Expect the Left to go after Judge Hudson.  George W. Bush appointed him to the federal bench in 2002, following a career in the state bench and also in the US Marshal Service as director during Bush 41′s administration.  The Right showed no reluctance to point out Susan Bolton’s appointment by Bill Clinton, and turnabout is not just fair play but de rigueur by now.

It matters little, anyway.  Virginia wasn’t the only state preparing a challenge to this law, nor was it even first to file a challenge.  This law will go to the Supreme Court from many directions, and there are more than enough constitutional grounds for judges to allow hearings on it, regardless of what Pete Stark thinks.

Besides, Hudson only refused to dismiss the lawsuit.  He hasn’t yet ruled on any of the arguments in the case, except to rule that Virginia has a case to argue that the federal government overreached.  What we know now is that at least one court will hear that case — and that’s the first step to checking the power of Washington.

Update: Hudson did note the unprecedented nature of the administration’s use of the Commerce Clause to justify ObamaCare’s mandate:

The guiding precedent [on the Commerce Clause] is informative but inconclusive. Never before has the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far. At this juncture, the court is not persuaded that the Secretary has demonstrated a failure to state a cause of action with respect to the Commerce Clause element.

Again, this doesn’t mean Hudson’s ruling against it, but it means he seems pretty skeptical that these clauses can be stretched this far. (via The Corner)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Inanemergencydial on August 2, 2010 at 10:09 PM

I feel your senator pain. I have two winners: Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin…both of them unapologetic lefties. Though, I think they sense the writing on the wall for them now…and it’s not friendly graffiti if you know what I mean. ;)

Grace_is_sufficient on August 3, 2010 at 6:37 AM

crr6 on August 2, 2010 at 9:06 PM

We understand your inability to comprehend the language and principles of the founding fathers. If you can’t understand Glenn Beck’s explanations then I doubt anyone can explain it to you.

But, don’t fret too much. The Communists never understood the Founding Fathers either.

DWB on August 3, 2010 at 12:39 AM

crr6 is probably fairly competent at minutaie. The problem with being competent with minutaie, is, of course, that you miss the big picture, get lost in the forest for the trees…insert your own cliche. Reminds me of a scientist running around the Titanic: “But it can’t sink, it can’t! I studied the dimensions! I know the materials they used!” Meanwhile, all the sensible people pile into lifeboats.

Getting lost in minutaie also reminds me of this profound verse: “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places.”–Ephesians 6:12
crr6, the people who seek to rule over you rarely, rarely have your best interest at heart (those who seek to serve you is a different matter.) In your study of minutaie, never forget that.

Grace_is_sufficient on August 3, 2010 at 6:50 AM

minutaie – minutiae. Never type before coffee! ;)

Grace_is_sufficient on August 3, 2010 at 8:10 AM

Yesterday was a busy day for news from both Virginia and Arizona.

kingsjester on August 3, 2010 at 8:41 AM

Ken Cuccinelli is doing the right thing. In an interview yesterday, he said this is not about healthcare, it is about one thing—-liberty.

and I would agree.

ted c on August 3, 2010 at 8:44 AM

Wow, it’s a good thing we’ve never had any fundamentally unjust laws in this country.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Last I checked, we fought those as well.

Good Solid B-Plus on August 3, 2010 at 9:20 AM

Grace_is_sufficient on August 3, 2010 at 6:50 AM

As an example, Jimmah Carter was competent in minutiae. I had a history professor once (an admitted socialist, BTW) who used to say about Jimmah, “Some people are detail people. They can’t see the forest for the trees. Carter was so mired in minutiae that he couldn’t see the trees for all the leaves.”

I believe our trolls are similarly afflicted. Particularly the alleged legal scholars among them.

NoLeftTurn on August 3, 2010 at 9:21 AM

Yet another judge to Obama:

Suck it

fossten on August 3, 2010 at 10:04 AM

I ask the right once again – how much do you REALLY think you can roll this all back?

Dark-Star on August 3, 2010 at 10:23 AM

“Popularity” has nothing to do with it, Hawk. It’s whether it passes muster legally. Whether a majority of people like it or dislike it is irrelevant to whether it’s permissible under the Commerce Clause.
Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 8:44 PM

Dang! I Proud Rino turning itself into a caricature!

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Grace_is_sufficient on August 3, 2010 at 6:50 AM

Yeah, sorry. I’ve gotten so wrapped up in the “minutaie” of whether the bill is actually Constitutional or not, that I’ve lost sight of the “big picture”: Some wingnuts on HA disagree with Health Care Reform because it goes against their political worldview!

crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Have any of you NeoProgressives explained how the “right to Healthcare” can be reconciled against the prohibitions against involuntary servitude?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Have any of you NeoProgressives explained how the “right to Healthcare” can be reconciled against the prohibitions against involuntary servitude?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 11:58 AM

No one here said there’s a “right to healthcare”, Chip.

And anyway, if paying a fine for not purchasing healthcare=involuntary servitude, than filing federal income taxes=involuntary servitude.

Sorry Chip.

crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:00 PM

No one here said there’s a “right to healthcare”, Chip.

crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:00 PM

BS, the NeoProgressive democrats have been claiming that for time immemorial.

A “Right” to service like healthcare entails the providing that service by someone.

If I’m a healthcare profession, how did I suddenly entail the obligation to provide that service?

If I’m a taxpayer, how did I suddenly entail the obligation to pay for that service?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:04 PM

No one here said there’s a “right to healthcare”, Chip.

crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:00 PM

BS, the NeoProgressive democrats have been claiming that for time immemorial.

Well, I haven’t so I don’t see why I should care about what the “neoprogressive democrats” you refer to say.

A “Right” to service like healthcare entails the providing that service by someone.

Like a right to bear arms? Does the 2nd amendment require that the government provide citizens with firearms? Any thoughts Chip?

If I’m a healthcare profession, how did I suddenly entail the obligation to provide that service?

Not sure what that sentence means Chip. Maybe try rephrasing it?

If I’m a taxpayer, how did I suddenly entail the obligation to pay for that service?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Well Chip, you’re not a taxpayer, you’re some sort of wingnut computer program that spits out trite, robotic, talking points.

crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Again, this doesn’t mean Hudson’s ruling against it, but it means he seems pretty skeptical that these clauses can be stretched this far. (via The Corner)

Go read the part of the opinion dealing with the taxation power, though. It suggests that the judge was very close to deciding to dismiss one of the challenges to the lawsuit because Congress’ taxation power is less limited than its commerce clause powers.

Jimbo3 on August 3, 2010 at 12:07 PM

crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:07 PM

So there is no “Right to Healthcare”?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM

So there is no “Right to Healthcare”?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM

In the Constitution? Nope. I don’t think so, at least. What do you think, Chip?

crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Like a right to bear arms? Does the 2nd amendment require that the government provide citizens with firearms? Any thoughts Chip?

Did you miss that Chip?

crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:14 PM

So there is no “Right to Healthcare”?
Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM

In the Constitution? Nope. I don’t think so, at least. What do you think, Chip?
crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:11 PM

I didn’t specify, but are you agreeing that there is no “Right to Healthcare”?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:14 PM

I didn’t specify, but are you agreeing that there is no “Right to Healthcare”?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Yeah Chip, I agree. There’s no right to healthcare in the Constitution. I don’t really see why you’re so caught up on that, but hey, whatever floats your boat!

crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:17 PM

I didn’t specify, but are you agreeing that there is no “Right to Healthcare”?
Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Yeah Chip, I agree. There’s no right to healthcare in the Constitution. I don’t really see why you’re so caught up on that, but hey, whatever floats your boat!
crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Okay try reading what I wrote – I didn’t specify ‘in the Constitution’

If you are agreeing that there is NO “Right to Healthcare”, then why were the Democrats using that as a justification for passing Obamacare?

And if there is NO “Right to Healthcare”, Why would I have to provide those services as a health professional?

AS a Taxpayer, Why do I have to pay for someone else’s healthcare?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Okay try reading what I wrote – I didn’t specify ‘in the Constitution’

Well, where else would a “right to healthcare” be?

If you are agreeing that there is NO “Right to Healthcare”, then why were the Democrats using that as a justification for passing Obamacare?

I’m pretty sure Democrats are using the Commerce clause and Congress’s power of taxation as justification for passing healthcare reform, not a “right to healthcare”. Looks like you haven’t been keeping up with the news, Chip!

crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Like a right to bear arms? Does the 2nd amendment require that the government provide citizens with firearms? Any thoughts Chip?

Chip,

I think you missed this part of my post! Any thoughts?

Chip?

crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:28 PM

I’m pretty sure Democrats are using the Commerce clause and Congress’s power of taxation as justification for passing healthcare reform, not a “right to healthcare”. Looks like you haven’t been keeping up with the news, Chip!
crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Okay, so now the story is that the ‘Commerce clause and Congress’s power of taxation’ effectively gives the government the justification to seize property and labor to provide healthcare, correct?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Okay, so now the story is that the ‘Commerce clause and Congress’s power of taxation’ effectively gives the government the justification to seize property and labor to provide healthcare, correct?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Yeah, I’m pretty sure the “power of taxation” has always been used as a justification for taking property (money), Chip. Nothing new there. And the Commerce clause has often been used to regulate property. It has even been used to force people to do business with others (like with the Civil Rights Act of 1964)! Looks like you’re getting all worked up for nothing!

Now that I’ve cleared that up for you, would you mind answering this:

Like a right to bear arms? Does the 2nd amendment require that the government provide citizens with firearms? Any thoughts Chip?

Thanks, Chip.

crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:52 PM

In what sense did FDR “pack” SCOTUS? Is it in the sense that he replaced justices who retired or died – just like every other president has done when the opportunity arose, or in the sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about?

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Yeah, you’re right. Presidents appoint 8 Justices of their own picking to SCOTUS in a 4 year period all the time.

Del Dolemonte on August 3, 2010 at 12:54 PM

Yeah, I’m pretty sure the “power of taxation” has always been used as a justification for taking property (money), Chip. Nothing new there. And the Commerce clause has often been used to regulate property.
crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:52 PM

So it doesn’t bother you that your fellow leftists have obligated taxpayers and health professionals to involuntary servitude?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:56 PM

So it doesn’t bother you that your fellow leftists have obligated taxpayers and health professionals to involuntary servitude?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Well no, since we no one has done that.

What’s your definition of “involuntary servitude”, Chip?

Also, you seem to keep missing this:

Like a right to bear arms? Does the 2nd amendment require that the government provide citizens with firearms? Any thoughts Chip?

I guess you don’t like that question. Am I right, Chip?

crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Merriam-Webster dictionary: involuntary

1 : done contrary to or without choice
2 : compulsory

Merriam-Webster dictionary: servitude a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one’s course of action or way of life.

Aren’t you supposed to be a “Law Student” or something?

Shouldn’t you know those words?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Aren’t you supposed to be a “Law Student” or something?

Shouldn’t you know those words?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Well now you’re just saying random stuff so I guess it’s time for me to leave.

It’s been fun Chip!

crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 1:15 PM

AMF!
Oh, on your other question:

Like a right to bear arms? Does the 2nd amendment require that the government provide citizens with firearms? Any thoughts Chip?

I guess you don’t like that question. Am I right, Chip?
crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Clearly you are attempting to use misdirection to steer the discussion away from an area that you are losing.
But since you keep on asking, maybe you should read the Constitution first and get back to me on that.

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 1:19 PM

So it doesn’t bother you that your fellow leftists have obligated taxpayers and health professionals to involuntary servitude?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:56 PM

–Where does this require health professionals to participate?

Jimbo3 on August 3, 2010 at 1:29 PM

So it doesn’t bother you that your fellow leftists have obligated taxpayers and health professionals to involuntary servitude?
Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:56 PM

–Where does this require health professionals to participate?
Jimbo3 on August 3, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Shouldn’t the fact that there is a great deal of compulsion involved with Obamacare bother those that support the idea of ‘Liberty’?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 1:47 PM

His attorney status was inactive in 2002,

right2bright on August 2, 2010 at 4:34 PM

From what I’ve seen on this, from an article from World Net Daily (& of course I will have to take their word for it since I have no clue).
It seems very plausible considering the continuing education requirements for a law degree, you’d be nuts not to get your license as inactive if you’re not going to be practicing for a while. Seems as though an inactive status is not always bcs someone did something bad.

“Popularity” has nothing to do with it, Hawk. It’s whether it passes muster legally. Whether a majority of people like it or dislike it is irrelevant to whether it’s permissible under the Commerce Clause.Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 8:44 PM

OK. Did you really say this yourself?!
Bcs if you mean this, you are EXACLTY what is wrong with this country.
It does not matter if the majority of Americans want to ignore & exploit parts of the Constitution.
Regardless of how the electorate feels about anything, the Const. is not something we can get rid of parts of just bcs the ‘majority’ wants to.
This is why we have the framework of the Const. in the first place.
Everyone has to operate under it, whether the ‘majority’ likes it or not.
This is why we are a Republic & not a mob rule Democracy.
What an insane thing to say.
The judicial branch should not be able to make rulings that go against the Const.
And yet they clearly have. We the People should not be putting up with it at all.
And this is where Congress has failed us all miserably, hence we have failed ourselves by letting all these schmucks line their pockets (& some of their constituents) at the expense of the Const.

Badger40 on August 3, 2010 at 2:08 PM

“Popularity” has nothing to do with it, Hawk. It’s whether it passes muster legally. Whether a majority of people like it or dislike it is irrelevant to whether it’s permissible under the Commerce Clause.Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 8:44 PM

I think you should read this again.

While you’re at it, please tell me where in the Const. or Decl. Of Indpndnc. it states that if the majority of the people don’t like what’s written in the founding documents that they can jut vote to not obey those documents?

Badger40 on August 3, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Like a right to bear arms? Does the 2nd amendment require that the government provide citizens with firearms? Any thoughts Chip?
I guess you don’t like that question. Am I right, Chip?
crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:58 PM

I don’t really understand why you brought this up as a talking point.
Can you please explain how it’s relevant o Obamacare & the Commerce Clause?

Badger40 on August 3, 2010 at 2:12 PM

It seems very plausible considering the continuing education requirements for a law degree license, you’d be nuts not to get your license as inactive if you’re not going to be practicing for a while. Seems as though an inactive status is not always bcs someone did something bad

Badger40 on August 3, 2010 at 2:50 PM

CR66 You continue to amaze me, I can never figure out how someone can be fairly intelligent and literate while at the same time be completly ignorant of what is going on around them. Try thinking for yourself for a change instead of just defending…hell you may even enjoy it.

Reality Checker on August 3, 2010 at 8:31 PM

So it doesn’t bother you that your fellow leftists have obligated taxpayers and health professionals to involuntary servitude?

Chip on August 3, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Well no, since we no one has done that.

crr6 on August 3, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Oh, lookie, the law student had a Freudian slip. She admits that she’s a “leftist” and therefore, has no interest in proving that Obamacare is Constitutional; she simply wants to find a loophole so it can be rammed through.

As Christopher Hitchens said, all the truly cutting-edge young people are in the military now. Post-adolescent, law student leftists are so 1967.

Grace_is_sufficient on August 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM

As Christopher Hitchens said, all the truly cutting-edge young people are in the military now.

Grace_is_sufficient on August 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM

What does that mean?

Proud Rino on August 3, 2010 at 9:58 PM

His attorney status was inactive in 2002,

right2bright on August 2, 2010 at 4:34 PM
From what I’ve seen on this, from an article from World Net Daily (& of course I will have to take their word for it since I have no clue).
It seems very plausible considering the continuing education requirements for a law degree, you’d be nuts not to get your license as inactive if you’re not going to be practicing for a while. Seems as though an inactive status is not always bcs someone did something bad.

“Popularity” has nothing to do with it, Hawk. It’s whether it passes muster legally. Whether a majority of people like it or dislike it is irrelevant to whether it’s permissible under the Commerce Clause.Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 8:44 PM
OK. Did you really say this yourself?!
Bcs if you mean this, you are EXACLTY what is wrong with this country.
It does not matter if the majority of Americans want to ignore & exploit parts of the Constitution.
Regardless of how the electorate feels about anything, the Const. is not something we can get rid of parts of just bcs the ‘majority’ wants to.
This is why we have the framework of the Const. in the first place.
Everyone has to operate under it, whether the ‘majority’ likes it or not.
This is why we are a Republic & not a mob rule Democracy.
What an insane thing to say.
The judicial branch should not be able to make rulings that go against the Const.
And yet they clearly have. We the People should not be putting up with it at all.
And this is where Congress has failed us all miserably, hence we have failed ourselves by letting all these schmucks line their pockets (& some of their constituents) at the expense of the Const.

Badger40 on August 3, 2010 at 2:08 PM

–I put my law license in Michigan in inactive status after Texas issued me a law license. There’s no need to have simultaineous active law licenses in more than one state unless you plan to practice simultaineously in all of them, which is unlikely unless you’re a litigator or you are a member of a law firm with offices in those states. If you later decide to practice in the inactive state, you pay additional amounts to make your payments current (as if you had kept an active license for all the inactive years) and you have to catch up on all missed CLEs during a two or so year period.

Jimbo3 on August 3, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Jimbo3 on August 3, 2010 at 10:55 PM

I figured that was the case from what I’ve read.
I’m all on board to sear BO over wrongdoings, but this issue is nothing to focus on.
People need to stop poking at it.
We’ve certainly got enough to razz BO on already.
Picking on something like this will only make us look like fools.

Badger40 on August 4, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3