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

Obama thinks the Commerce Clause has the same definition as carte blanche has. I think his French isn’t any better than his Austrian.

Tav on August 2, 2010 at 1:49 PM

I can see the response now.

Obama: “Judge Hudson acted stupidly…..”

Vyce on August 2, 2010 at 1:59 PM

INJUNCTION! Then, REPEAL!

parteagirl on August 2, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Hey, will you be forced to buy an Obama Motors Electric Lemon next?

tarpon on August 2, 2010 at 2:12 PM

The court needs to take a weed-whacker to the commerce clause, and cut it down to size. Start with doing away with the EPA.

tarpon on August 2, 2010 at 2:20 PM

They asked Kagan if the gubment could tell you what to eat. She still hasn’t said.

(keep the icky electric cars off the roads. They don’t pay tax on fuel. The roads are also made with asphalt and they have issues with petrol)

seven on August 2, 2010 at 2:35 PM

the libs are shredding Judge Hudson on lefty Virginia blogs. They say he was GWB appointee to fed bench & that he was Republican appointee to state bench.

my husband is a Virginia judge. He no longer has any politics. Virginia judges are NOT allowed to have any partisan political discourse with anyone, no yard signs, no political donations–no nothing. They are appointed; they do not run for their judgeships.

My point here is that being a Virginia judge, which is very, very impartial by Virginia law, is good training for being an impartial federal judge.

Libs: suck it.

kelley in virginia on August 2, 2010 at 2:53 PM

We vote on the issues tomorrow in Missouri. Prop C says Missourians do not have to buy mandated insurance. Of course, Federal Law will override it, so it isn’t blocking Obamacare, but voting YES on Prop C will show where the people in this state stand on Obamacare.

Show Me State, let’s go!

ace tomato on August 2, 2010 at 2:54 PM

The commerce clause might be overextended (Duh). It has been stretched so far that it should have broken long ago. It has already been used for items totally within a single state and how that could affect interstate commerce is bewildering to say the least.

duff65 on August 2, 2010 at 2:57 PM

While I am generally skeptical of any sort of hope when it comes to the imminent collapse of the Forumer United States of America, I will say this could, theoretically offer an olive branch in that direction. If one supposes the courts over-throw obama-care, it is conceivable that a broad enough ruling would open challenges to all sorts of welfare state building blocks.

WashingtonsWake on August 2, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Thanks, Ken.

Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Now, about the GMU and State Forest gun bans……

riverrat10k on August 2, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Ahh, the irony. I read that the Attorney General of Va has also said that law enforcement in that state has the right to inquire as to immigration status of people they deal with.

Terrye on August 2, 2010 at 3:39 PM

I’d sure like to see the course syllabus for the classes he “taught”. Or are these also protected due to National Security Concerns?

BobMbx on August 2, 2010 at 12:24 PM

LINK to syllabus and final exams.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html

Jeff2161 on August 2, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Meanwhile, while the States take Obama on in the courts…

Hey!

I wonder on whose side Obama is on?

Mr. Joe on August 2, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Take a good look at what the pro-illegal side is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93Ka7y8XrPc&feature=player_embedded

Django on August 2, 2010 at 4:13 PM

This may have been covered before in another post, and I know it is not fashionable to refer to antiquated precedent like the US Constitution, but in a dispute between the sttes and the federal government, isn’t the Supreme Court mandated to serve as the trial court?

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 :

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…

While COngress apparently tweaked this requirement as follows:

TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 81 > § 1251

§ 1251. Original jurisdiction

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

…one has to question whether Congress had the authority to amend a Constitutional requirement without a formal amendment to the Constitution itself.

No doubt some federal case somewhere that says this is OK, but I am not aware of it.

I cannot recall the last time the Supreme Court sat as a trial court, but just because it hasn’t done so in a very long time

Jim M. on August 2, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Jeff2161 on August 2, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Ever wonder why they never talk about his legal career? Notice nobody mentions him being an attorney.
Yes, he passed the bar exam, then several months later they approached him and stated they wanted to “review” his exam…he refused and forfeited his attorney’s shingle. Rather then be “investigated” he just walked away from being an attorney. His attorney status was inactive in 2002,

right2bright on August 2, 2010 at 4:34 PM

The commerce clause might be overextended (Duh). It has been stretched so far that it should have broken long ago. It has already been used for items totally within a single state and how that could affect interstate commerce is bewildering to say the least.

duff65 on August 2, 2010 at 2:57 PM

The Commerce Clause is a favorite tool of radical Leftist law types and their disciples (see Practicing Leftist Law Student “crr6″).

Here in New England last year, the Leftist Democrats in Massachusetts used the “Commerce Clause” to try and tax their own Subjects for the “crime” of buying car tires here in New Hampshire, where there is no sales tax and much lower prices.

The “Activist Judge” laughed them out of court, and Massholes can still buy their tires here.

Del Dolemonte on August 2, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Hey, will you be forced to buy an Obama Motors Electric Lemon next?

tarpon on August 2, 2010 at 2:12 PM

Given that there is a federal subsidy, expect to be forced to buy many thousands of them.

clement on August 2, 2010 at 5:12 PM

If one supposes the courts over-throw obama-care, it is conceivable that a broad enough ruling would open challenges to all sorts of welfare state building blocks.

WashingtonsWake on August 2, 2010 at 3:08 PM

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

I will say one thing about Obamacare that makes it a cut above all other welfare state programs constitutionally. Every other welfare program you must apply for it and hope for approval. If you don’t apply for it, no harm, no foul.

Under Obamacare, it mandates you must apply for and get approved for something or suffer the penalties. If you cannot get approved by the private insurance companies, the gov’t will step in and approve you for thier insurance pool for the less fortunate. But, you MUST still apply for that or suffer the penalties. Therein lies the unconstitutional personal mandate.

Phil-351 on August 2, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Virginia has a case to argue that the federal government overreached

What’s to stop the federal government from mandating that everyone buy shoes made in China? Shirts made in Chicago? What’s next???

TN Mom on August 2, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Under Obamacare, it mandates you must apply for and get approved for something or suffer the penalties. If you cannot get approved by the private insurance companies, the gov’t will step in and approve you for thier insurance pool for the less fortunate. But, you MUST still apply for that or suffer the penalties. Therein lies the unconstitutional personal mandate.

Phil-351 on August 2, 2010 at 5:19 PM

ObamaCare only allocated $5 Billion for the insurance pool for people in poverty. This will quickly run out as states are forced to add people to medicaid. Not only does ObamaCare force you to have health insurance, it also will force you to pay; regardless of the cost they choose for you. Those already paying for private health insurance, will pay additional money through state tax increases as medicaid cost soar.

TN Mom on August 2, 2010 at 5:41 PM

speaking of AG Ken Cuccinelli….Foxnews is now reporting that VA police can and will investigate citizenship/immigration status during traffic stops and arrests.

pwnage. Right on DC’s doorstep.

ted c on August 2, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Heh. The Cucc is loose.

Uncle Pinky on August 2, 2010 at 5:42 PM

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.

Seriously the list is probably endless of things you could require of Americans with Obama’s line of thinking.

CWforFreedom on August 2, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Never before has the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far.

It was the right decision to allow Virginia to bring the claim (although I think Va will lose in the end) but this doesn’t sound right at all. How is this any different from Social Security or Medicare? You’re forced to buy those things whether you like it or not, too.

And just off the top of my head, saying that “violence against women” somehow had an impact on interstate commerce, or that “guns in “school zones”" has an impact on interstate commerce is much more of a reach than a law requiring people have (or purchase) health care, since that directly impacts commerce. You’d basically have to overturn the entire line of commerce clause reasoning all the way back to Wickard v. Filburn. I guess that’s good if you’re Rand Paul and you think businesses should be allowed to refuse service to people based on the color of their skin, but for the rest of us, that’s a pretty terrible outcome, and there’s no way the SCOTUS is going down that road.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM

The court needs to take a weed-whacker to the commerce clause, and cut it down to size. Start with doing away with the EPA.

tarpon on August 2, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Well, just in case you were wondering, Cuccinelli is working on that one too – he filed a lawsuit the month after he took office saying that the punative regulatory powers of the EPA are unconstituional. Particularly citing
emmission and air quality standards that the EPA is trying to fine states for not meeting. Oh, and one more tidbit, KC (or Cucc – both common nicknames for the AG here in VA) also signed an order today “clarifying” what VA law enforcement can and cannot do regarding illegals. You know what one of those things is? You can ask someone you are arresting for another crime – what they immigration status is. But clever like he is, he said that legal residents of other nations have a right to consult with their consulate when arrested, and this cannot be done unless we know their citizenship status. Gotta love that guy!

Govgirl on August 2, 2010 at 6:27 PM

Yes and no – see the mandate forces you to purchase insurance from a private company or the government – medicare is a tax, as is social security. The HHS realized that this was an issue when they went to defend the bill, and essentially ended up arguing that it was a “tax” and therefore acceptable. The problem is, that it isn’t written as a tax. Also, don’t be so sure VA will lose, this is not the 9th circus we are talking about here and ever since Obama’s little scolding at the SOTU address, I think Justice Kennedy has made it his personal mission to be a pain in Obama’s backside. Did you miss the well placed leaks about the “earliest” he would retire? In addition to the most influencial people on SCOTUS (you know the ones with brains) now being Scalia and Roberts – RBG and Breyer are probably not thanking Obama for the new additions, it just makes their job harder.

Govgirl on August 2, 2010 at 6:34 PM

A small victory against the tyrannical regime currently in power. The health insurance mandate would inevitably lead to the usurpation of all sorts of personal liberties from cigarettes to candy bars and everything in between. Unless of course you are part of the Ruling Class who would continue their caviar and champagne lifestyles as usual.

leapsandbounds on August 2, 2010 at 6:41 PM

How is this any different from Social Security or Medicare? You’re forced to buy those things whether you like it or not, too.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM

Right, they’re unconstitutional as well. FDR argued that SS wasn’t a tax when he wanted it passed, and had his attorney’s argue that it was a tax, and therefore constitutional when it was challenged.

I have about as much faith in our court system as I do Obama.

darwin on August 2, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Govgirl on August 2, 2010 at 6:27 PM

I love Cuccinelli. He has cojones.

darwin on August 2, 2010 at 6:46 PM

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM

So you agree that the government then could force people to buy guns or cars like the Volt . Right?

CWforFreedom on August 2, 2010 at 6:54 PM

I love Cuccinelli. He has cojones.

darwin on August 2, 2010 at 6:46 PM

Yes he does!! He does what he thinks is right, period, if it is not going to get him on the most loved list, he doesn’t care. For any of you interested there is a great feature story on Cuccinelli at this link. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072304025.html

Govgirl on August 2, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Right, they’re unconstitutional as well.

darwin on August 2, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Exactly and as long as we have idiots in charge and certain supposed conservative writers (and posters on this site) not seeing your point it will be a tough go.

CWforFreedom on August 2, 2010 at 6:55 PM

“Where is crr6? The world wonders.”

Apologies to Fleet Admiral Nimitz…

Khun Joe on August 2, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Good to be a Virginian again . . . .

Sherman1864 on August 2, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM

In this nation, employment is a CHOICE. Do most of us choose it? Sure…but you can also CHOOSE to forage in garbage cans if you don’t want to work.

This is the first time in the history of the USA that you are FORCED to purchase something simply because you are alive.

I do not overstate when I say: if the SC does not rule the mandate unconstitutional, the Republic will never be the same–and may be lost.

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 7:05 PM

So you agree that the government then could force people to buy guns or cars like the Volt . Right?

CWforFreedom on August 2, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Yep. I’m not saying it’s not stupid, but just because a law is a bad idea does not make it automatically unconstitutional.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 7:17 PM

Ever wonder why they never talk about his legal career? Notice nobody mentions him being an attorney.
Yes, he passed the bar exam, then several months later they approached him and stated they wanted to “review” his exam…he refused and forfeited his attorney’s shingle. Rather then be “investigated” he just walked away from being an attorney. His attorney status was inactive in 2002,

right2bright on August 2, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Care to comment on Michelle Obama’s “Court Ordered Inactive Status”?
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/wtf-michelle-ob.html

BigAlSouth on August 2, 2010 at 7:19 PM

In this nation, employment is a CHOICE. Do most of us choose it? Sure…but you can also CHOOSE to forage in garbage cans if you don’t want to work.

This is the first time in the history of the USA that you are FORCED to purchase something simply because you are alive.

Oh, you’re not actually familiar with the law that passed.

I do not overstate when I say: if the SC does not rule the mandate unconstitutional, the Republic will never be the same–and may be lost.

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 7:05 PM

I’m sorry you have so little faith in your country and you’re so unfamiliar with her history, but I can assure you that the United States has survived far worse than a possibly ill-advised law.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Ever wonder why they never talk about his legal career? Notice nobody mentions him being an attorney.
Yes, he passed the bar exam, then several months later they approached him and stated they wanted to “review” his exam…he refused and forfeited his attorney’s shingle. Rather then be “investigated” he just walked away from being an attorney. His attorney status was inactive in 2002,

right2bright on August 2, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Care to comment on Michelle Obama’s “Court Ordered Inactive Status”?
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/wtf-michelle-ob.html

BigAlSouth on August 2, 2010 at 7:19 PM

http://snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 7:22 PM

the entire line of commerce clause reasoning all the way back to Wickard v. Filburn.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM

The Democrats own that decision as FDR had packed SCOTUS with Democrat Justices.

Most examples of abuse of the Commerce Clause since then have been initiated by Democrats, not Republicans. And many times they have been laughed out of Court, as was the case last year here in New England when the Leftist Democrats in Massachusetts tried to tax their own Subjects for the “crime” of purchasing their car tires here in New Hampshire. Previously, MA had sent undercover revenue agents to our State to spy on people buying our cheaper booze and cigarettes, too.

Del Dolemonte on August 2, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 7:22 PM

Snopes is run by 2 Democrats. Not to be confused with a reliable or objective reference source.

Del Dolemonte on August 2, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Oh, you’re not actually familiar with the law that passed.

Yes I am. I know that one can avoid paying into SS and Medicare by choosing not to be employed. I also know that every American MUST be covered by health insurance in Obamacare…that ability to “LIVE FREE OR DIE” is gone if this stands.

I’m sorry you have so little faith in your country and you’re so unfamiliar with her history, but I can assure you that the United States has survived far worse than a possibly ill-advised law.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 7:20 PM

“Sir, what have you given us?”

“A Republic….if you can keep it.”

–Ben Franklin, on leaving the Constitutional Convention

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 7:29 PM

I can assure you that the United States has survived far worse than a possibly ill-advised law.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Give us some examples. I’ll make the popcorn.

Del Dolemonte on August 2, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Meh. The judge’s reasoning is pretty weak (he completely ignores the implications of Raich, for example), but it’s forgivable because he’s really just playing devil’s advocate for Virginia here. It’s not tough to survive a 12(b)(6).

Note: It is tough to win a TRO and the Doj managed to last week.

crr6 on August 2, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Snopes is run by 2 Democrats. Not to be confused with a reliable or objective reference source.

Del Dolemonte on August 2, 2010 at 7:28 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Yes I am. I know that one can avoid paying into SS and Medicare by choosing not to be employed. I also know that every American MUST be covered by health insurance in Obamacare…that ability to “LIVE FREE OR DIE” is gone if this stands.

I see. According to the clear text bill, what happens if you don’t purchase health insurance?

crr6 on August 2, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Oh, you’re not actually familiar with the law that passed.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 7:34 PM

I see. According to the clear text bill, what happens if you don’t purchase health insurance?

crr6 on August 2, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Your property will be taken from you.

darwin on August 2, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Oh, and one more thing….lefties always adore SOCIETY over LIBERTY, and seek to benefit the former no matter the cost to the latter.

I’m sorry you have so little faith in your country and are unfamiliar with the tenets of her founding fathers or documents, but there you have it: “Give me liberty, or give me death.”

RINO. Right.

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 7:36 PM

The Democrats own that decision as FDR had packed SCOTUS with Democrat Justices.

Del Dolemonte on August 2, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Interesting. 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 7:38 PM

Your property will be taken from you.

darwin on August 2, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Nope. Have you read the bill? The law specifically says that no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don’t pay the fine.

crr6 on August 2, 2010 at 7:38 PM

I see. According to the clear text bill, what happens if you don’t purchase health insurance?

crr6 on August 2, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Your ability to live off the grid is gone and gone forever. You must do as Nanny State says you must; you must be covered by health insurance, enroll in a designated program, or pay a penalty.

You still don’t get it. I guess that’s what a first year law “education” will get you….history, philosophy, rational thought all escape you, don’t they?

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 7:40 PM

I’m sorry you have so little faith in your country and are unfamiliar with the tenets of her founding fathers or documents, but there you have it: “Give me liberty, or give me death.”

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Bold words from a slaveowner.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 7:41 PM

Today Obamacare. Tomorrow Arizona’s illegal immigration law!

RebeccaH on August 2, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Oh, and one more thing….lefties always adore SOCIETY over LIBERTY, and seek to benefit the former no matter the cost to the latter.

I’m sorry you have so little faith in your country and are unfamiliar with the tenets of her founding fathers or documents, but there you have it: “Give me liberty, or give me death.”

RINO. Right.

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Oh snaps!

crr6 on August 2, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Bold words from a slaveowner.

Rino, slaveowner? Really?

RebeccaH on August 2, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Bold words from a slaveowner.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 7:41 PM

WOW, you and your little friend crr6 are sooooo right on tonight! I never, ever heard that one before! Wow, reallllly? Some of our founding fathers owned slaves? I’m gobsmacked!

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Sorry, but just randomly quoting people’s political speeches doesn’t really mean much to me. And it means even less when you say things like, “Give me liberty or give me death,” and you think so little of the concept of liberty that you own other people as property.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Now Herr Hussein Obama is hot on health care
He’s made it his personal affair
National Socialist the country will be
As he goosed-stepped all over the Constitution, said he
‘cause you see, if it brings more power to me
Then the misery it brings, is something you must all just grin and bear

Cheshire Cat on August 2, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Sorry, but just randomly quoting people’s political speeches doesn’t really mean much to me. And it means even less when you say things like, “Give me liberty or give me death,” and you think so little of the concept of liberty that you own other people as property.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Oh, goody. You think that every principle must have a perfect person behind it, or the principle is invalidated.

Well, then….we can get rid of the Democratic party, since Robert Byrd was a member of a certain three-letter racist group. Right, “RINO”? Or we can do away with Planned Parenthood, since Margaret Sanger was an avowed racist eugenicist.

After all, no one says “Women’s Care” like Margaret Sanger. Right?

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 8:02 PM

Cheshire Cat on August 2, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Terrific. Let’s compare Barack Obama with the Nazis, who started the bloodiest war in history and tried to wipe the Jews from the face of the Earth, because you don’t like the health care bill. Way to keep things in perspective.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Oh, goody. You think that every principle must have a perfect person behind it, or the principle is invalidated.

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 8:02 PM

That’s not what I said, of course, and I’m intrigued by the idea that you think that being a slaveowner makes you merely imperfect.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 8:09 PM

We all have our flaws, friends. I’ve been told I’m too competitive and I like to argue too much, Patrick Henry may have owned a few people in his day. Every rose has its thorn, am I right?

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Proud RINO and Crr6. Was it difficult to come here and just acknowledge how unpopular this is? That’s what the real subject of this thread was. If the legislation was so good, why would anyone turn it down? Why would anyone, let alone a solid majority of the American people fight so hard against it? It’s going to be defeated still.

hawkdriver on August 2, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Oh, goody. You think that every principle must have a perfect person behind it, or the principle is invalidated.

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 8:02 PM
That’s not what I said, of course, and I’m intrigued by the idea that you think that being a slaveowner makes you merely imperfect.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 8:09 PM

I did not qualify the degree of “badness”, did I? Shall we go there, RINO? Shall we determine if owning slaves is worse than snuffing out millions and millions of developing lives based upon their race? Because, doncha know, that’s what Margaret Sanger proposed.

So, how DO you feel about Planned Parenthood, hmmm???

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Proud RINO and Crr6. Was it difficult to come here and just acknowledge how unpopular this is? That’s what the real subject of this thread was. If the legislation was so good, why would anyone turn it down? Why would anyone, let alone a solid majority of the American people fight so hard against it? It’s going to be defeated still.

hawkdriver on August 2, 2010 at 8:16 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

Proud RINO and Crr6. Was it difficult to come here and just acknowledge how unpopular this is?

Er, no. Last poll I saw, a majority of Americans supported the bill.

That’s what the real subject of this thread was. If the legislation was so good, why would anyone turn it down?

No, I’m pretty sure the subject of the thread was “Federal Judge refuses to dismiss Virginia challenge to Obamacare.”

Why would anyone, let alone a solid majority of the American people fight so hard against it?

Pretty much every legislation that has ever been proposed has had some people fighting against it. On the contrary, if healthcare reform is so awful, why have generations of Americans fought so hard for it? Why did a “solid majority of Americans” vote for Obama when he promised an even more liberal version of the health care reform that was passed this year?

It’s going to be defeated still.

No, probably not. Sorry.

hawkdriver on August 2, 2010 at 8:16 PM

crr6 on August 2, 2010 at 9:04 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

It’s called “consent of the governed”.

A fundamentally unjust law will never stand in this country–or we will lose everything we hold dear. You seem unable to comprehend this.

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 9:05 PM

It’s called “consent of the governed”.

A fundamentally unjust law will never stand in this country–or we will lose everything we hold dear. You seem unable to comprehend this.

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Grace, don’t take this the wrong way, but I think you’ve been watching the faux Thomas Paine intros on the Glen Beck show a bit too much.

crr6 on August 2, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Why did a “solid majority of Americans” vote for Obama

crr6 on August 2, 2010 at 9:04 PM

“I never thought I would see this day! If I take care of Obama, he’s going to take care of me! I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car, or paying my mortgage…”

–An Obama voter

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 9:09 PM

Grace, don’t take this the wrong way, but I think you’ve been watching the faux Thomas Paine intros on the Glen Beck show a bit too much.

crr6 on August 2, 2010 at 9:06 PM

I rarely watch his show, and that quote is in a little document called the “Declaration of Independence”. I’m sure you’ve heard of it, right?

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 9:14 PM

I love Ken Cuccinelli. He’s had the guts to draw a line with this administration and this Congress.

Obamacare? check
Allowing police in Va. to check immigration status? check

Christi/Cuccinelli!!!

You heard it here first.

BacaDog on August 2, 2010 at 9:20 PM

I rarely watch his show

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 9:14 PM

lol.

crr6 on August 2, 2010 at 9:21 PM

A fundamentally unjust law will never stand in this country–or we will lose everything we hold dear.

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 9:05 PM

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

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

Oh, we have, and they nearly tore our nation apart more than once. Should they be allowed to stand–should the citizenry accept them in the long-term–then yes, we lose our Republic. Are you not a student of history?

I rarely watch his show

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 9:14 PM
lol.

crr6 on August 2, 2010 at 9:21 PM

I have this little thing called a “job” and I’m not home when he’s on. Additionally, I read the Declaration of Independence long before you were born and have a firm grasp on its concepts.

Best wishes, RINO and crr6. I know it’s difficult to see your preferred ideology fail again, but I’m afraid that’s what’s happening. May it always falter in the face of individual liberty, free markets, and small government.

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 9:39 PM

The country belongs to the people Mr. B.O. We run it. Not just you.

johnnyU on August 2, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Where is troll6 to parse this all for us mere hayseeds?

I cannot recall the last time the Supreme Court sat as a trial court, but just because it hasn’t done so in a very long time

Jim M. on August 2, 2010 at 4:30 PM

They do occasionally serve as court of first impression, but usually only when the dispute is between two states. Civil Procedure was not my best class (my prof was straight out of “Paper Chase”), but if I recollect correctly, SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over these types of cases (where the feds sue a state) but not exclusive jurisdiction. In other words, they could serve as the trial court, but it is not imperative that they must. It is permissible to bring the suit at the federal district court level and work up the food chain.

NoLeftTurn on August 2, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Snopes is run by 2 Democrats. Not to be confused with a reliable or objective reference source.

Del Dolemonte on August 2, 2010 at 7:28 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 7:33 PM

And Jimmy Wales, who founded Wiki, had to admit that it could not be relied upon as a reliable reference source, after being flooded with complaints by college kids who had just been given F grades on their term papers and citing it in their “footnotes”.

Next question?

Del Dolemonte on August 2, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Tomorrow Missouri votes on Prop C.

It will pass by a huge majority.

Inanemergencydial on August 2, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Next question?

Del Dolemonte on August 2, 2010 at 9:52 PM

What was incorrect in the Wikipedia definition?

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Now Herr Hussein Obama is hot on health care
He’s made it his personal affair
National Socialist the country will be
As he goosed-stepped all over the Constitution, said he
‘cause you see, if it brings more power to me
Then the misery it brings, is something you must all just grin and bear

Cheshire Cat on August 2, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Terrific. Let’s compare Barack Obama with the Nazis, who started the bloodiest war in history and tried to wipe the Jews from the face of the Earth, because you don’t like the health care bill. Way to keep things in perspective.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Now Comrade Hussein Obama is hot on health care
He’s made it his personal affair
Leninist the country will be
As he Alinsky-stepped all over the Constitution, said he
‘cause you see, if it brings more power to me
Then the misery it brings, is something you peasants must all just grin and bear

Cheshire Cat on August 2, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Interesting. 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 7:38 PM

FDR appointed 9 Justices

8 of them were in place in 1941. Which means that in an incredibly short span of 4 years (1937-1941), FDR did pack the Supreme Court.

Next question?

Del Dolemonte on August 2, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Round about the cauldron go
In the poisoned entrails throw
Fillet of Kevorkian snake
In the cauldron boil and bake
Eye of bribed congressman and toe of Ezekiel frog
Wool of kos ding bat and tongue of Mengele dog
Senator’s pork and blind-bureaucrat sting
Chris Matthews tingling leg and White House far left wing
Maw of ravening tax shark
Root of Obama hemlock digged in the dark

Cheshire Cat on August 2, 2010 at 10:03 PM

What was incorrect in the Wikipedia definition?

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Translation: “I just lost.”

Check their “reference” footnotes. Laughable.

Del Dolemonte on August 2, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Next question?

Del Dolemonte on August 2, 2010 at 10:02 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

Translation: “I just lost.”

Check their “reference” footnotes. Laughable.

Del Dolemonte on August 2, 2010 at 10:04 PM

What was incorrect in the Wikipedia definition, again?

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Tomorrow Missouri votes on Prop C.

It will pass by a huge majority.

Inanemergencydial on August 2, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Delicious!

Tomorrow I’ll vote in the Michigan governor primary. Lots of good conservative choices, though I’m going with the AG who filed against Obamacare, Mike Cox. Anyone who can smite Jennifer Granholm AND Obummer with one filing has my vote! ;)

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Delicious!

Tomorrow I’ll vote in the Michigan governor primary. Lots of good conservative choices, though I’m going with the AG who filed against Obamacare, Mike Cox. Anyone who can smite Jennifer Granholm AND Obummer with one filing has my vote! ;)

Grace_is_sufficient on August 2, 2010 at 10:06 PM

MO has prop C and the Lt. Governor Peter Kinder has filed a lawsuit against the Fed. Gubmint. Makes me proud to be a Missourian, even if that whore McCaskill is my Senator.

Inanemergencydial on August 2, 2010 at 10:09 PM

that whore McCaskill is my Senator.

Inanemergencydial on August 2, 2010 at 10:09 PM

She’s lucky to have such classy constituents.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 10:13 PM

the smear campaign has started

RonK on August 2, 2010 at 10:16 PM

She’s lucky to have such classy constituents.

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 10:13 PM


Agreed, the SEIU members she represent are racist thugs.

Inanemergencydial on August 2, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Agreed, the SEIU members she represent are racist thugs.

Inanemergencydial on August 2, 2010 at 10:18 PM

I see. So because some liberals are bad people, that gives you the right to be a bad person as well. With morals like those, who needs morals?

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 10:20 PM

I see. So because some liberals are bad people, that gives you the right to be a bad person as well. With morals like those, who needs morals?

Proud Rino on August 2, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Oh, I’m a bad person?

Thanks anonymous leftist internet agitator!

Inanemergencydial on August 2, 2010 at 10:21 PM

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

Comment pages: 1 2 3