Federal judge rules ObamaCare is unconstitutional in its entirety

posted at 4:23 pm on January 31, 2011 by Allahpundit

A nice win, if only because it’s fun to watch the left sweat, but as we’ve discussed before, these lower-court decisions are virtually meaningless. There’s no question that the Supreme Court will eventually take this matter up, and given how profound the constitutional objection to the mandate is, there’s no chance that they’ll let “deference” to lower-court rulings shape their opinion on the matter. What we’re doing with these district court rulings — which now stand evenly split on ObamaCare, two finding it constitutional and two not — is going through the procedural motions until the Supremes get down to business. The only bit of significance these decisions might have is that they may move the Overton window of possible outcomes in Anthony Kennedy’s mind. After O-Care was passed, I remember some constitutional law experts citing the Court’s liberal Commerce Clause jurisprudence and claiming that they’d probably uphold it on something like an 8-1 vote. That seems impossible now; I’d bet 6-3 at worst, with a very fair chance of a 5-4 win for conservatives. The more anti-ObamaCare lower court rulings there are, the more political cover Kennedy has to vote with the conservative wing of the Court if he’s so inclined. If.

Here’s a PDF of the opinion. The judge, Roger Vinson, is a Reagan appointee who didn’t hide his skepticism about the law during oral arguments, so the baseline ruling isn’t surprising. A fun hypothetical about the government’s power to force citizens to buy things they don’t want to:

Or what if two of the purported “unique” factors [of the health-care market] — inevitable participation coupled with cost-shifting — are present? For example, virtually no one can opt out of the housing market (broadly defined) and a majority of people will at some point buy a home. The vast majority of those homes will be financed with a mortgage, a large number of which (particularly in difficult economic times, as we have seen most recently) will go into default, thereby cost-shifting billions of dollars to third parties and the federal government. Should Congress thus have power under the Commerce Clause to preemptively regulate and require individuals above a certain income level to purchase a home financed with a mortgage (and secured with mortgage guaranty insurance) in order to add stability to the housing and financial markets (and to guard against the possibility of future cost-shifting because of a defaulted mortgage), on the theory that most everyone is currently, or inevitably one day will be, active in the housing market?

The left will scoff at the supposed absurdity of his example, but there’s nothing absurd about it. This sort of sweeping power to compel purchases to achieve a public good is precisely what’s at stake in the mandate.

What is a bit surprising is that Vinson went further and held that the mandate isn’t “severable” from the rest of the law — which means that the whole law is unconstitutional, not just the part that requires people to buy insurance. That’s unusual insofar as courts like to be modest when striking down statutes; if they can find a section of it unconstitutional while preserving the rest of it, they’ll do so out of respect for the democratic branches that enacted it. In this case, however, as we’ve been told by Democrats many times, you can’t have universal health care unless you force people to pay for it. Cutting the mandate out of O-Care and keeping the rest of the scheme intact would create a nightmare scenario in which people avoid buying insurance until they get sick, with insurers required to accept them by the new rules governing preexisting conditions. Before long, that cost burden would drive most insurers into bankruptcy, with the golden age of a public option or single-payer soon to follow.

Which is to say, if you’re going to kill this beast, you’d better kill all of it. Vinson on severability:

In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch, and that seems to fit. It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed. There are simply too many moving parts in the Act and too many provisions dependent (directly and indirectly) on the individual mandate and other health insurance provisions — which, as noted, were the chief engines that drove the entire legislative effort — for me to try and dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone. Such a quasi-legislative undertaking would be particularly inappropriate in light of the fact that any statute that might conceivably be left over after this analysis is complete would plainly not serve Congress’ main purpose and primary objective in passing the Act. The statute is, after all, called “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” not “The Abstinence Education and Bone Marrow Density Testing Act.” The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker.

If Congress intends to implement health care reform — and there would appear to be widespread agreement across the political spectrum that reform is needed — it should do a comprehensive examination of the Act and make a legislative determination as to which of its hundreds of provisions and sections will work as intended without the individual mandate, and which will not. It is Congress that should consider and decide these quintessentially legislative questions, and not the courts…

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

A fun fact about ObamaCare: Unlike virtually every other federal statute, it contains no “severabililty clause” at the end requesting that if any part of it should be held unconstitutional in court, the rest should be preserved as good law. Vinson actually mentions that fact in the opinion and notes that an earlier draft of the law did contain such a clause, suggesting that it was deliberately dropped because even Congress agrees that you can’t sever any one part from such an elaborate scheme. The truth, however, may be more prosaic: According to a Democratic aide who spoke to the Times back in November, the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!


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 5

Yaaaaaay!!!!!!

Webrider on January 31, 2011 at 4:24 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrDxlf9bMYU

Flyboy on January 31, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Best quote from the decision:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

TEAPARTYFTW!!!!!1!!111

picklesgap on January 31, 2011 at 4:26 PM

‘a conservative judge appointed by reagan’….

-all blm lead-ins with this story…

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 4:26 PM

“The truth, however, may be more prosaic: According to a Democratic aide who spoke to the Times back in November, the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!”

I guess that is just another example of the idiotic example Nancy gave us about “having to read it to see what is in it.”

Webrider on January 31, 2011 at 4:26 PM

“Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?” – Nancy Pelosi

cirrus on January 31, 2011 at 4:26 PM

oh.. you wanted us to pass ‘legal’ laws? well, you’ve got the wrong folks running the show… not that the GOP will do much better

good day though

gatorboy on January 31, 2011 at 4:26 PM

It is obvious the Judge didn’t read the bill to learn about all the wonderful things in the bill!

rjoco1 on January 31, 2011 at 4:27 PM

There goes 2012!!

leftnomore on January 31, 2011 at 4:27 PM

EAT $HIT AND CHOKE OBAMA!

csdeven on January 31, 2011 at 4:27 PM

“We have to pass the bill to learn how badly we’re screwing you little people!”

search4truth on January 31, 2011 at 4:28 PM

if you’re going to kill this beast, you’d better kill all of it.

amen

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 4:28 PM

WATERLOO!

rjoco1 on January 31, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Encouraging that they adopted the mandate as being essential to the act as a whole. If they severed it this mess could last for decades.

but as we’ve discussed before, these lower-court decisions are virtually meaningless.

I disagree. While they aren’t binding in terms of this case always being destine for SCOTUS, it gives the Supremes something to lean on in terms of reasoning, and in that respect, these cases encouraging. Look for one out of Oklahoma under Judge White. I believe it’s the first to adopt the Virginia opinion.

Meric1837 on January 31, 2011 at 4:28 PM

bbqpwnsauce!!!

mossberg500 on January 31, 2011 at 4:28 PM

the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!

I believe in miracles.

darwin on January 31, 2011 at 4:28 PM

In the immortal words of Ice Cube, “Today was a good day.”

BirdEye on January 31, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Two thing the Coach used to say:

1. “Win your shift”

2. “You can’t beat ‘em on the ice if you can’t beat ‘em in the alley.

Just did #1.

Bruno Strozek on January 31, 2011 at 4:28 PM

“Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?” – Nancy Pelosi

cirrus on January 31, 2011 at 4:26 PM

The Seahag has a hole in her parachute!

PALOMINO!!!

csdeven on January 31, 2011 at 4:28 PM

What is a bit surprising is that Vinson went further and held that the mandate isn’t “severable”

Can we assume the Dem staffer who forgot this clause was fired this afternoon???????

picklesgap on January 31, 2011 at 4:29 PM

According to a Democratic aide who spoke to the Times back in November, the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!

They needed to pass it to find out what WASN’T in it.

DrAllecon on January 31, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Thank you, Judge Vinson! I’m glad to see that SOMEONE has read and understands the constitution. Unlike those who voted for and support this monstrosity.

UltimateBob on January 31, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Can the SCOTUS cut this process short and take up the issue?

d1carter on January 31, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Y.E.A.H.! Talk about Odumba$$ having a WTF moment with this one!

sicoit on January 31, 2011 at 4:30 PM

According to a Democratic aide who spoke to the Times back in November, the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!

oopsie indeed

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 4:30 PM

How long before the MSM lables the judge a “right wing nut job, tea partier, gun totting, religon clinging, neocon”?

milwife88 on January 31, 2011 at 4:30 PM

*Everything* goes to the supreme court now. There is something wrong with that.

Congress should be doing a better job so the supreme court doesn’t get involved. We live in a democratic republic where the will of the majority should decide issues, not deep pocketed special interest groups who can waste time and money forcing issues to the supreme court.

We’re being terrorized by the tyranny of the minority who simply will not accept the will of the majority.

Skandia Recluse on January 31, 2011 at 4:30 PM

vinson gets the gold star for the day

atta boy!

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM

milwife88 on January 31, 2011 at 4:30 PM

they will lead with that everytime they talk about it…

guaranteed

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM

The truth, however, may be more prosaic: According to a Democratic aide who spoke to the Times back in November, the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!

Now that is funny.

conservative pilgrim on January 31, 2011 at 4:32 PM

I don’t count on SCOTUS for anything. Send Obama shuffling back to Chicago and Reid back to a cave in Nevada, then repeal this POS.

SKYFOX on January 31, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Twenty six states, a couple federal judges and the house of representatives all agree. OSocialistCare has to go.

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications,” Vinson wrote.

There is no sever-ability clause.

dogsoldier on January 31, 2011 at 4:32 PM

That seems impossible now; I’d bet 6-3 at worst, with a very fair chance of a 5-4 win for conservatives.

This won’t be just a win for conservatives. How about a WIN for every American that knows this is the worst piece of written legislation in over 200 years, not to mention UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Rovin on January 31, 2011 at 4:33 PM

That Time magazine cover seems more funny than ever.

SouthernGent on January 31, 2011 at 4:33 PM

What did the 5 fingers say to the face?

mad saint jack on January 31, 2011 at 4:33 PM

A test for ChuckUSchumer: Which branch of the government just SLAPPED THE SH!T out of you and the rest of the libtards? Not a multiple choice either….

sicoit on January 31, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Great news but predictable especially since the dopes didn’t put a severability clause in the bill. But even with this clause, the meat and potatoes of the bill was its mandatory nature. Without the mandate, the bill is a toothless lion. But of course a totally void bill is even better. On to the repeal process and let’s pray today’s decision will be sustained. But who knows what cockeyed lawyers in bathrobes will do?

MaiDee on January 31, 2011 at 4:33 PM

these lower-court decisions are virtually meaningless.

I think I understand the context of your statement, but these rulings do make a difference in one area at least…..many uninformed Americans who never questioned the constitutionality of Obamacare are now forced to consider they have been looking at this all wrong.

csdeven on January 31, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Commence socialist gnashing of teeth.

Inanemergencydial on January 31, 2011 at 4:34 PM

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Forgot to add that he skins live puppies and is known for punching old ladies in the face. It HAS come to this!

milwife88 on January 31, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Too bad Olby is already gone from MSLSD. I’d love to see the clip of his meltdown…

OmahaConservative on January 31, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Speaking strictly as a straight man, I want to kiss the judge!

ElectricPhase on January 31, 2011 at 4:35 PM

How long before the MSM lables the judge a “right wing nut job, tea partier, gun totting, religon clinging, neocon”?

milwife88 on January 31, 2011 at 4:30 PM

The White House is probably drafting the narrative as we speak. It’ll be distributed on Journo-List shortly, just in time for the CBS Evening News.

UltimateBob on January 31, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Stand up Chuck! Schumer that is, seems we really do have a third branch of government.

fourdeucer on January 31, 2011 at 4:35 PM

The truth, however, may be more prosaic: According to a Democratic aide who spoke to the Times back in November, the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!

Hey maybe they should have read skimmed it before cramming it through.

forest on January 31, 2011 at 4:36 PM

I didn’t think it was possible to feel any better about this decision. Then someone reminded me of this.

Kataklysmic on January 31, 2011 at 4:36 PM

when I was in law school, we learned that the severability clause was impt for this very reason. duh.

i thought Congress was chock full of lawyers. My former Democrat Pelosi-enabling congressman had a big shot Yale law degree.

kelley in virginia on January 31, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Obamacare’s socialized healthcare has never ever been about medicine and medical care.

From the very beginning it is and always only ever has been about control.

The 733, and climbing, Obamacare socialized healthcare waivers are absolute proof positive of that ‘beyond a shadow of a doubt’.

The Washington Times covers it very well HERE with an updated story on the waivers and the bid to control American’s personal and private physical lives.

FlatFoot on January 31, 2011 at 4:36 PM

The truth, however, may be more prosaic: According to a Democratic aide who spoke to the Times back in November, the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!

We are governed by dumb-asses. Fortunately, that’s not a bug; that’s a feature.

nukemhill on January 31, 2011 at 4:37 PM

fourdeucer on January 31, 2011 at 4:35 PM

LMAO! Brilliant!

milwife88 on January 31, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Yep, that “preconditions” part everyone loved has to be paid for. I suspect many enthusiastic supporters didn’t think about that. But, why should they? Hasn’t this stuff always been free? Lunches really have to be paid for? Who knew?

a capella on January 31, 2011 at 4:38 PM

The GOP establishment breathes a collective sigh of relief.

davidk on January 31, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Obama’s Sputnik moment has entered a low orbit. It won’t be long now.

Electrongod on January 31, 2011 at 4:38 PM

even if the mandate is removed, the bill still has horrible things in it. all sort of taxes for this & that which have no relation to healthcare at all.

business-busting record-keeping reqmts are also in the bill. so the whole bill needs to be declared unconst

kelley in virginia on January 31, 2011 at 4:38 PM

That judge just saved 1/6th of our economy! WOOOOOOOOT

sicoit on January 31, 2011 at 4:38 PM

I hope Anthony Kennedy has a food taster.

Kataklysmic on January 31, 2011 at 4:38 PM

milwife88 on January 31, 2011 at 4:34 PM

lol….i’m sure they will add that it in

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Yes! Time for the ObamaCare Repeal Dance!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRBLmogRL4c

keepinitreal on January 31, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Or what if two of the purported “unique” factors [of the health-care market] — inevitable participation coupled with cost-shifting — are present? For example, virtually no one can opt out of the housing market (broadly defined) and a majority of people will at some point buy a home. The vast majority of those homes will be financed with a mortgage, a large number of which (particularly in difficult economic times, as we have seen most recently) will go into default, thereby cost-shifting billions of dollars to third parties and the federal government. Should Congress thus have power under the Commerce Clause to preemptively regulate and require individuals above a certain income level to purchase a home financed with a mortgage (and secured with mortgage guaranty insurance) in order to add stability to the housing and financial markets (and to guard against the possibility of future cost-shifting because of a defaulted mortgage), on the theory that most everyone is currently, or inevitably one day will be, active in the housing market?

The left will scoff at the supposed absurdity of his example, but there’s nothing absurd about it. This sort of sweeping power to compel purchases to achieve a public good is precisely what’s at stake in the mandate.

Hasn’t this alredy happened with the housing market? Obama loves redistribution, especially forced one. He is a socialist/communist in GE clothing.

A fun fact about ObamaCare: Unlike virtually every other federal statute, it contains no “severabililty clause” at the end requesting that if any part of it should be held unconstitutional in court, the rest should be preserved as good law. Vinson actually mentions that fact in the opinion and notes that an earlier draft of the law did contain such a clause, suggesting that it was deliberately dropped because even Congress agrees that you can’t sever any one part from such an elaborate scheme. The truth, however, may be more prosaic: According to a Democratic aide who spoke to the Times back in November, the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!

My absolute favorite part of it all. crr6′s side are not very smart.

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Hey look … I believe the Brits were trying to pay down the debt on the French and Indian war with those Tea Taxes. So it was in everyone’s “best interest” to buy Tea and pay that tax.

Hell – even King George didn’t mandate that you actually buy tea.

HondaV65 on January 31, 2011 at 4:40 PM

keepinitreal on January 31, 2011 at 4:39 PM

lol, i think i’ll stick with the snoopy dance :)

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 4:41 PM

What is a bit surprising is that Vinson went further and held that the mandate isn’t “severable”

What does that mean?

davidk on January 31, 2011 at 4:41 PM

“Virtually meaningles” hardly… We’re not talking 9th circut here…

mjbrooks3 on January 31, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Man, if YouTube weren’t blocked, I’d play “sleepyhead” and dance my booty off

Sekhmet on January 31, 2011 at 4:42 PM

What is a bit surprising is that Vinson went further and held that the mandate isn’t “severable”
What does that mean?

davidk on January 31, 2011 at 4:41 PM

…can’t be seperated from the rest of the bill…

mjbrooks3 on January 31, 2011 at 4:42 PM

dear leader to hit the links avoiding further responsibility

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Great, now doctors will go back to choppin off diabetics’ feet for $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 again.

Akzed on January 31, 2011 at 4:42 PM

“We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in but we’re going to get Obamacare repealed for the America people.”

_TEA party

unseen on January 31, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Lol

Asher on January 31, 2011 at 4:43 PM

You religious folks out there:

Pray for the health of the Conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

You non religious folks out there:

Pray for the health of the Conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

BowHuntingTexas on January 31, 2011 at 4:43 PM

obamacare delenda est

El_Terrible on January 31, 2011 at 4:43 PM

TEAPARTYFTW!!!!!1!!111

picklesgap on January 31, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Eleventy, indeed!!1!!!111!!!!

INC on January 31, 2011 at 4:43 PM

these lower-court decisions are virtually meaningless.

Not one of your best moments AP…
This will put added fire under every newly elected representative in both houses. This will put the fear of political death in the Democrat Senators who are up for election in 12. This will back Reid up against a wall with his efforts to stop this from coming to a vote in the Senate.

Keemo on January 31, 2011 at 4:43 PM

the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!
I believe in miracles.

darwin on January 31, 2011 at 4:28 PM

And the Miracle in Massachusetts, AKA the election of Scott Brown prevented them from going back and “fixing” the severability problem. D’Oh!!

txmomof6 on January 31, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Stand up Chuck! Schumer that is, seems we really do have a third branch of government.

fourdeucer on January 31, 2011 at 4:35 PM

:)

INC on January 31, 2011 at 4:44 PM

It’s official. Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) says he has all 47 Republican Senators on board as cosponsors of his bill to repeal Obamacare.

NRO. Slightly OT, but fun. Even the RINOs and Daddy’s Little Senator signed on.

Wethal on January 31, 2011 at 4:44 PM

…..many uninformed Americans who never questioned the constitutionality of Obamacare are now forced to consider they have been looking at this all wrong.

csdeven on January 31, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Hence the necessity to demonize this Judge.

Vince on January 31, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Now poor asthmatic kids can’t get breathalyzers!!!

Akzed on January 31, 2011 at 4:44 PM

A nice win, if only because it’s fun to watch the left sweat, but as we’ve discussed before, these lower-court decisions are virtually meaningless

This decision is quite a bit more than meaningless. More important than even the recent Virginia decisions. Judge Vinson offered up a brilliantly crafted set of remarks in his decision – detailing the absurdity of the core elements of Obamacare as well as keeping the argument separate from health care as an issue. This case is also important because 26 of these United States are the plaintiffs!! Meaning, they have the resources to carry the case through all stages of the fight.

I say not meaningless – meaningFULL!

JonPrichard on January 31, 2011 at 4:45 PM

My $ say the Supremes will give it one of those maybe rulings and send it back for tweaking. Nothing feels better to a groundhog than sleeping in.

Limerick on January 31, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Win the Future

faraway on January 31, 2011 at 4:46 PM

NRO. Slightly OT, but fun. Even the RINOs and Daddy’s Little Senator signed on.

Wethal on January 31, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Oh, wow! I guess I’m going to wear out my !!11!!!111! key today!

INC on January 31, 2011 at 4:46 PM

faraway on January 31, 2011 at 4:46 PM

together we thrive!!!!!

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 4:47 PM

What time does Tingles Matthews come on? Must force myself to watch.

OmahaConservative on January 31, 2011 at 4:47 PM

What is a bit surprising is that Vinson went further and held that the mandate isn’t “severable”
What does that mean?

davidk on January 31, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Congress often puts a severability clause in a law, so if a judge strikes down one part, the rest of he law stands. Without such a clause, the whole law gets struck down.

That Congress did not put one in could be interpreted by SCOTUS that Congress did not want severability.

I’d like to see the Solicitor General try to argue to SCOTUS: “They meant to put one in, but were in such a rush that they forgot.” Riiiight.

Wethal on January 31, 2011 at 4:47 PM

these lower-court decisions are virtually meaningless.

I agree, but tell me one thing. How is it that we have a law that the majority of the country does not want, and that now two federal district court judges have found to be unconstitutional? The arrogance, foolishness, and brazenness of the people that were in power is unbelievable.

On a related note, I heard the first ad today attacking Ben Nelson, Democrat Nebraska, for his under the table dealings related to Obamacare. The group who sponsored the ad wants him to vote “yes” on a repeal bill. Even though his reelection is not for two years, he is in trouble.

kam582 on January 31, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Jim Lehrer: Which beings us to our final question. Governor Bush, both you and the Vice-President have offered plans to provide prescription drugs for the elderly. What makes your plan superior?

Al Gore: Jim, I’d like to interrupt here and answer that question as if it were my turn to speak. Jim, let me tell about a friend of mine. [ holds up a picture of an elderly woman ] Her name is Etta Munsen. She’s 94, she’s a widow living on Social Security in Sparta, Tennessee. Etta was born with only one kidney. She also suffers from poilo, spinal menengitis, lung, liver, and pancreatic cancer, an enlarged heart, diabetes, and a rare form of styctic acne. Now, several recent strokes, along with an unfortunate shark attack, have left her paralyzed and missing her right leg under the knee. Just last week she woke from a coma to find that, due to a hospital mix-up, her left arm had been amputated, infected with syphillis, and then reattached.

Jim Lehrer: Mr. Vice-President, we are short of time..

Al Gore: As you can imagine, Jim.. Etta’s prescription drug bills are staggering. They run to nearly $113 million a day! And she tells me that some weeks she has to choose between eating and treating her Lyme Disease. Now, under my plan, Etta’s prescription drugs would be covered. Under my opponent’s plan, her house would be burned to the ground. And that is wrong. That is just wrong!

Akzed on January 31, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Tea Party: “We Won”

faraway on January 31, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Assuming PPACA is doa how does Oblabla spin this for 2012?

Give me 4 more years so I can try again?

If I were a libtard I would be saying: “I voted for you to give me free health care. You failed. So GTFO!”

Hussein’s crowning achievement may become his pink slip.

eyesky on January 31, 2011 at 4:47 PM

That’s one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind…

Keemo on January 31, 2011 at 4:48 PM

What time does Tingles Matthews come on? Must force myself to watch.

OmahaConservative on January 31, 2011 at 4:47 PM

will try to watch the 1st 5 minutes myself…i’m sure he’ll insert palin and bachmann in the mess…

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 4:48 PM

OC, he’ll be on in 10 minutes

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 4:49 PM

What is a bit surprising is that Vinson went further and held that the mandate isn’t “severable”
What does that mean?

davidk on January 31, 2011 at 4:41 PM

…can’t be seperated from the rest of the bill…

mjbrooks3 on January 31, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Therefore the whole bill is unconstitutional.

Vince on January 31, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Cutting the mandate out of O-Care and keeping the rest of the scheme intact would create a nightmare scenario in which people avoid buying insurance until they get sick

The scenario will play out regardless of whether the mandate is removed or not. There are no teeth in the mandate; almost no enforcement mechanism other than holding back tax refunds. People will avoid buying insurance in droves with the knowledge that they can’t be denied coverage after they get sick. The Democrats know this, of course, and will use this collosal failure of Obamacare to push universal healthcare.

WarEagle01 on January 31, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Tea Party: “We Won”

faraway on January 31, 2011 at 4:47 PM

:)

INC on January 31, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Does anyone think that this will put added pressure on the DOJ to fast track it to the Supremes? I would think an argument could be made that in our current budgetary situation that it would be foolish to waste the money on implementation if this could be fasttracked to SCOTUS. The DOJ would not agree to this in the Virginia case, but the judge there said the mandate was severable.

txmomof6 on January 31, 2011 at 4:50 PM

The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker.

Who knew Pelosi was such a terrible watchmaker? If the ticker’s broke, you must invoke.

Rovin on January 31, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5