11th Circuit rules Obamacare mandate unconstitutional; Update: Obama “confident”

posted at 2:40 pm on August 12, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Don’t expect this to be the last stop for the train, but during the next stage of the court challenge process, the individual mandate in Obamacare (not the entire law) has been found unconstitutional.

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that a provision in President Obama’s health care law requiring citizens to buy health insurance is unconstitutional, but didn’t strike down the rest of the law.

The decision is a major setback for the White House, which had appealed a ruling by a federal district judge who struck down the entire law in January. But the case is clearly headed to the Supreme Court, which will have the final say.

On Friday, the divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with 26 states that filed a lawsuit to block Obama’s signature domestic initiative.The panel said that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by requiring Americans to buy insurance or face penalties.

One comment of note from the majority declared the mandate to be, “a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority.” This is pretty much in line with most of the well fleshed out complaints we’ve seen since the suit was originally begun.

At United Liberty, George Scoville calls it a great day for liberty.

There are a couple of things of important note packed into this ruling:

  • Federalists won today. This is another victory for constitutionalism and those who believe that government is best which governs least — that the U.S. Constitution created a limited government with specific enumerated powers.
  • It is now more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case. While the high court’s docket has become hugely more selective in years past, the fact that the 11th Circuit and 6th Circuit are at odds with each other in their respective rulings increases the likelihood that SCOTUS will decide this issue.
  • The Court disappointed in its treatment of the non-severability issue. In fact, it overturned the lower court’s ruling, which held that, because the law lacked a severability clause, overturning any of the law’s provisions means necessarily an overturning of the entire law.

Forbes predicted something along these lines back in June, though at the time some progressive critics were referring to it as wishful thinking. But the fact that the entire law wasn’t struck down will come as cold comfort to Obamacare supporters. Without the mandate the entire thing pretty much collapses in on itself and nothing is left but a few trillion dollars in new taxes, fees, and… and…

Hey. Wait a minute.

Update (AP): The court’s website is overloaded so I can’t download the opinion — which is just as well, as it’s over 300 pages. But here’s a key bit excerpted by Philip Klein:

[T]he individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power. This conclusion is limited in scope. The power that Congress has wielded via the Commerce Clause for the life of this country remains undiminished. Congress may regulate commercial actors. It may forbid certain commercial activity. It may enact hundreds of new laws and federally-funded programs, as it has elected to do in this massive 975- page Act. But what Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die.

It cannot be denied that the individual mandate is an unprecedented exercise of congressional power. As the CBO observed, Congress “has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” CBO MANDATE MEMO, supra p.115, at 1. Never before has Congress sought to regulate commerce by compelling non-market participants to enter into commerce so that Congress may regulate them. The statutory language of the mandate is not tied to health care consumption—past, present, or in the future. Rather, the mandate is to buy insurance now and forever. The individual mandate does not wait for market entry.

Elsewhere in the opinion, again via Klein, the court said the mandate “is unprecedented, lacks cognizable limits, and imperils our federalist structure.” In a word: Indeed. And the best part of today’s decision? One of the two judges in the majority was … a Clinton appointee. The unconstitutionality of the mandate is no longer a partisan position.

The worst part of the decision is the severability ruling. If the Supreme Court rules that way too, it’ll mean the rest of ObamaCare will remain intact and good law even after the mandate is nuked. Which, actually, is a perverse outcome: The whole reason the mandate’s there in the first place is so that insurers have a big new pool of premiums flowing in to help offset the costs they’ll incur from now having to cover people with preexisting conditions, etc. If that pool disappears, the whole arrangement becomes financially unstable. Congress would have to go back to the drawing board and either scale back the other parts of the law so that it can function without a mandate or nuke the law in its entirety.

Update (AP): Another killer quote from the opinion via Politico. Philosophically, this is a total victory:

The majority of the panel said they couldn’t uphold the mandate because there would be no limit to Congress’s powers if they did. Opponents of the law have frequently argued that if Congress can require people to buy insurance, they can force people to do anything else, such as buy broccoli or a gym membership for their health benefits…

“We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers,” Dubina and Hull wrote. “’Uniqueness’ is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision.”

Obama’s having some month, huh?

UPDATE: Team Obama says they are “confident” that they will still prevail. They now have 90 days to appeal to either the Supremes or the full 11th circuit.

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

hmmm…there’s an entire section devoted to “first principles” in the majority’s commerce clause analysis. A bit odd for a lower court, no? crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Ah yes, just think of what Stalin coulda done if he only had the Commerce Clause.

Akzed on August 12, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Cody1991 on August 12, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Not sure about a direct connection to the military, but USAA directs car insurance customers to them because they won’t ensure motorcycles.

hawkdriver on August 12, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Don’t know if you heard, hawk, but USAA was one of the insurance companies S & P downgraded last week.

Thank you President O’bama.

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 4:00 PM

I still can’t get over this pathetic display of ignorance by Obama. A 48 year old man who doesn’t understand the basics of insurance.

forest on August 12, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Same here. Every kid I know that has a driver license knows the difference between liability-only and full coverage (collision) insurance. Apparently Obama was too busy learning the finer points of Alinsky and Marx to have time to figure out the basics of auto insurance.

txsurveyor on August 12, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Cody1991 on August 12, 2011 at 3:58 PM

I know. But I really had no choice. When I got my HD, USAA insured me through them. I’ve paid it off since and can get different insurance now. But I hear you. I prefer to not send my money to epople who use it against us.

hawkdriver on August 12, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 4:00 PM

I know.

hawkdriver on August 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Do you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?

PetecminMd on August 12, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Pete,

Most of the courts which have addressed the issue so far have agreed with me.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM

I never send money to epople.

Akzed on August 12, 2011 at 4:03 PM

UPDATE: Team Obama says they are “confident” that they will still prevail. They now have 90 days to appeal to either the Supremes or the full 11th circuit.

And if they don’t get it done, they’ll just roll forward anyway. They’ve demonstrated that they don’t care what courts and Constitution say, and… hey, aren’t we still in a ‘Constitutional crisis’ for months now since Obama pushed forward despite having a court tell them not to?

It’s so cute how people continue to think Obama will for reason start acting in accord with the Constitution when he’s given no evidence yet that he cares to do so.

Midas on August 12, 2011 at 4:03 PM

No severance clause.

Finding any part of Obamacare unconstitutional takes down the whole edifice.

LarryD on August 12, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Most of the courts which have addressed the issue so far have agreed with me.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM

But this is the first time a Judge appointed by a Democrat President has disagreed with you.

Is she an Activist Judge?

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 4:06 PM

This is nice, but I’m not confident that the Supreme Court will strike it down. It needs to be repealed.

JellyToast on August 12, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Pete,

Most of the courts which have addressed the issue so far have agreed with me.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM

3 to 2 in favor of the mandate at the district level and 1 to 1 at the appellate level. Not exactly a resounding endorsement of your position.

NotCoach on August 12, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Most of the courts which have addressed the issue so far have agreed with me.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Unfortunately it seems likely to go to the Supreme Court now though.

AsianGirlInTights on August 12, 2011 at 4:11 PM

If so, it should be understood who Peter Lewis is, his political leanings and relationship to Soros.

Cody1991 on August 12, 2011 at 3:50 PM

It’s spelled Louis …. get it right, or I’ll tell my Grammy on you.

- csdevil

Jerome Horwitz on August 12, 2011 at 4:11 PM

ObamaCare will never prevail.

Either the Supreme Court shoots it down, or it gets repealed, or a significant number of states simply ignore it. Either way it’ll never get off the ground.

darwin on August 12, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Zero says: “Guys. Guys. Just let me eat my waivers.”

Opinionator on August 12, 2011 at 4:14 PM

I missed this in the post:

The Court disappointed in its treatment of the non-severability issue. In fact, it overturned the lower court’s ruling, which held that, because the law lacked a severability clause, overturning any of the law’s provisions means necessarily an overturning of the entire law.

How did they justify this?

I followed one of AP’s links:

Presumably, the insurance market across the United States ends up looking a lot like New York’s market, where during the debate over health care reform it was reported that the cost of the average family policy in the individual market was over $4,000 a month. That’s because New York has the other features of ObamaCare—community rating and guaranteed issue—without the mandate. The result was that all the healthy people dropped out of the pool, leaving a few very sick people to buy insurance. There’s a slight difference though: the government is going to subsidize individuals in the private market. If the subsidies keep pace with the cost, Obamacare’s nominal deficit reduction is going to turn into a gaping hole in the federal budget.

Under those conditions, the real question is political: will anyone have the guts to repeal community rating and guaranteed issue? Or the subsidies? And if not, how do we absorb the financial blow?

INC on August 12, 2011 at 4:14 PM

philipaklein Philip Klein
@
@MSchumacher SC precedent is to err on side of severability, they said, even if law doesnt include clause.

INC on August 12, 2011 at 4:15 PM

A lot of local hack politicians, already lining up to run the individual state Insurance Co-ops will be sorely disappointed.

kingsjester on August 12, 2011 at 4:16 PM

hawkdriver on August 12, 2011 at 3:57 PM

My pleasure.

That’s why there was such a big stink over the severability clause. Those clauses are attached to legislation as a way for Congress to tell judges: “if part of this law is unconstitutional we want to keep as much of it as possible.” Likewise, its abesence sends the message: “no part of this law can be done without.” This law does not have a severability clause, which further leads to my point that it needs to die as a whole. The Democrats claim they “forgot it” which is a silly argument to make. I’m of the opinion that they want any part of this law to survive so they can score political points by stating they actually did something, but that’s just me.

Meric1837 on August 12, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Boehner is the one that needs to act. ObamaCare was shoved down our throats using a simple majority because ir was scored as revenue neutral. Without this part, it is no longer neutral.

That should make the legislature toss the whole law.

barnone on August 12, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Philip Klein:

…But today’s decision, which comes in the case brought by 26 states led by Florida and the National Federation of Independent Business, is still important for several reasons. The most obvious is that it effectively guarantees that the Supreme Court will be forced to consider this issue. While everybody has been assuming they would, it was by no means guaranteed that the Supreme Court would hear the case if the Obama administration won a clean sweep of all the cases at the appellate level. Opponents have been saying all along that they only needed one victory at the appellate level, and they got it.

Another reason is that it’s a very narrow ruling. It doesn’t strike down any part of the law other than the mandate, and it strikes down the mandate within the context of current Supreme Court precedent. In other words, it provides a clear path for Supreme Court justices to rule the mandate unconstitutional without having to revisit prior decisions. The mandate, as the 11th Circuit says, is “unprecedented.”

Further, the majority’s concerns about the lack of a limiting constitutional principle will help opponents of the law argue to the Supreme Court that upholding the mandate would actually have more radical consequences than striking it down. This may be particularly important to swaying swing justice Anthony Kennedy, although obviously it’s a fool’s errand to try to predict his thinking.

INC on August 12, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Most of the courts which have addressed the issue so far have agreed with me.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Isn’t it 3-2 for ruling it unconstitutional, and 1-1 on the appeals (6th and 11th)?

amerpundit on August 12, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Zero says: “Guys. Guys. Just let me eat my waivers.”

Opinionator on August 12, 2011 at 4:14 PM

hehe

faraway on August 12, 2011 at 4:18 PM

There’s a lot at Klein’s piece which just went up a few minutes ago.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/why-11th-circuit-struck-down-obamacares-mandate

INC on August 12, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Update: Obama “confident”

Oh good!

cuz that means so much.

Tim_CA on August 12, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Most of the courts which have addressed the issue so far have agreed with me.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM

And that means… precisely what again?

Midas on August 12, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Not your weird uncle’s ninth circuit.

Speakup on August 12, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Isn’t it 3-2 for ruling it unconstitutional, and 1-1 on the appeals (6th and 11th)?

amerpundit on August 12, 2011 at 4:17 PM

No, it’s the reverse.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Lift your glass: Here’s to the bus falling out of the plane at 35,000 feet!

Landing harmlessly in a lake, of course.

Akzed on August 12, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Hmm, movie script?

slickwillie2001 on August 12, 2011 at 4:28 PM

You guys do realize that the 4th Circuit is still deciding the Virginia case? If they strike down the law, then it will be an even split.

andy85719 on August 12, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Count it!

carbon_footprint on August 12, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Pete,

Most of the courts which have addressed the issue so far have agreed with me.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Weren’t you the one saying that popularity had nothing to do with rights?

Skywise on August 12, 2011 at 4:34 PM

“Even though my awesomely awesome healthcare reform act lost again in the courts, America is still a socialist healthcare country,” -Obooba.

Akzed on August 12, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Hmm, movie script?
slickwillie2001 on August 12, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Just a treatment. It hasn’t been greenlighted by I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

Akzed on August 12, 2011 at 4:37 PM

BTW, I bought some canned peas the other day to mix with my dogs’ meals as I like to give them variety with a little meat and veggies added to dry food. They both turned up their noses and walked off.

Cody1991 on August 12, 2011 at 3:37 PM

I had one who could eat beef stew and leave only the peas.

katy the mean old lady on August 12, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Most of the courts which have addressed the issue so far have agreed with me.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Translation: I’m taking my ball and going home.

Alden Pyle on August 12, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Update: Obama “confident”

Is there a time when he wasn’t? The more confident he is, the more over reaching his actions are.

katablog.com on August 12, 2011 at 4:44 PM

“health care is unique”

So is broccoli – there’s no other vegetable like it. And we all know that people need to eat green vegetables so they will grow up to be green.

katablog.com on August 12, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Most of the courts which have addressed the issue so far have agreed with me.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Young lady, you are a para-legal at best, the courts aren’t agreeing with you, you are agreeing with them.
And we will see when it reaches the top rung of the ladder…there is no way this will accepted, even in this days liberal interpretation.
Of course you can find courts you agree with…there are courts who give violent rapists 3 years, child rapists 5 years or less. Liberal courts, that’s what they do, they don’t interpret the constitution, they run around it. And you are a perfect example, good thing you aren’t and won’t be an attorney. But it wouldn’t matter, I suspect you would be an “injury” attorney.

right2bright on August 12, 2011 at 4:48 PM

“health care is unique”

So is broccoli – there’s no other vegetable like it. And we all know that people need to eat green vegetables so they will grow up to be green.

katablog.com on August 12, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Give Peas a Chance.

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 4:49 PM

I had one who could eat beef stew and leave only the peas.

katy the mean old lady on August 12, 2011 at 4:38 PM

They’re so smart, aren’t they?

That’s why the only one who has a gun permit in my house is the Basset Hound!

Just kidding. He thinks Zippy is a self-centered pig. Astute, very wise.

Cody1991 on August 12, 2011 at 4:54 PM

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Young lady, you are a para-legal at best, the courts aren’t agreeing with you, you are agreeing with them.

right2bright on August 12, 2011 at 4:48 PM

That was beautiful to watch. The second part of this sentence especially.

Of course if Judge Hull were a Republican, she would be called an Activist Judge for this decision by the Left.

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 4:54 PM

Most of the courts which have addressed the issue so far have agreed with me.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM

So those courts are liberals, hell bent on destroying this country as well???

Bottom line is…you would not be posting here,on this particular thread, if this ruling didn’t scare the hell out of you.

capejasmine on August 12, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Give Peas a Chance.

King Putt already rules peas are a punishment vegetable.

katablog.com on August 12, 2011 at 4:56 PM

right2bright on August 12, 2011 at 4:48 PM

That or one to many episodes of Matlock have been viewed. You know, good ol commie Uncle Andy is very pursuasive. ;)

capejasmine on August 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM

FWIW, the appeal period to SCOTUS is 90 days, but if they want to ask for either a rehearing in front of the same three-judge panel, or for a rehearing in front of the full 11th Circuit, they must do so within 45 days. The time period begins to run from the date judgment is entered, which will probably not be today. It will probably be some time next week.

leeotis on August 12, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Most of the courts which have addressed the issue so far have agreed with me.

LOL I assumed this was someone mimicking Obama!

katablog.com on August 12, 2011 at 5:02 PM

I had one who could eat beef stew and leave only the peas.

katy the mean old lady on August 12, 2011 at 4:38 PM

I used to do that with meat pie.

slickwillie2001 on August 12, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Let’s have it struck down AND repealed!

SouthernGent on August 12, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Just wandered into DU.

Their very first cry was “Judicial Activism!”

1. Members of the court appointed by G.W. Bush Junior….

Wanna bet?

This ruling will empower the gang of five on the Supreme Court to rule

You are right. But when it comes to the crowd that appointed Bush, anything is possible.

crr will like this one

Most laws are written so that parts can be struck down without bringing down the entire law. It’s called severability. It would have been real amateur hour to leave this out of a controversal bill.

amateurs wrote this law

One of crr6′s country cousins checks in

Your mandated to have car insurance…so in theory that unconstitutional too…

Surprisingly, most of the DUmmies are actually against the mandate portion of the bill.

One final quote

If the individual mandate gets struck down by the Supreme Court…virtually the entire healthcare law dies. The mandate is the backbone of the entire thing.

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 5:55 PM

I havne’t read the thread, so forgive me for maybe asking this question if it’s already been covered — Didn’t obamacare, as written, NOT include a severability clause (as many pieces of legislation do)? If so, wouldn’t this render the whole law void and not just the mandate language?…

Gohawgs on August 12, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Isn’t it true that you’re merely a practicing lawyer, and not currently a law student at an unnamed but famous school?

DarkCurrent on August 12, 2011 at 3:54 PM

DC, I practiced law for a number of years, until I finally got it right and no longer had to practice it. I’m certainly not the genius law student troll to which you refer who proudly matriculates at an unnamed but famous law school. Which, of course, begs the question: Is there really any other kind of law school that trolls would attend?

TXUS on August 12, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Your mandated to have car insurance…so in theory that unconstitutional too…

Surprisingly, most of the DUmmies are actually against the mandate portion of the bill.

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Of course, that commenter is obtuse or ignorant. You are not mandated to have car insurance – you are required to show proof of liability. If you have enough cash around to meet the state’s minimums, you’re fine.

Also, the requirement is set by the states, not the federal government. They CAN mandate insurance instead of just ability to pay, and that is perfectly constitutionally allowable. He misses that rather nuanced point of Constitutional principles.

JeffWeimer on August 12, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Most of the courts which have addressed the issue so far have agreed with me.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM

How about you address the meat of the post.

That the reasoning in the opinion is simple, clear, and logical. Not your usual nonsense about how Congress is only limited by their own conscience.

PetecminMd on August 12, 2011 at 6:10 PM

That the reasoning in the opinion is simple, clear, and logical.
PetecminMd on August 12, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Actually it’s convoluted and over 200 pages long.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM

— Didn’t obamacare, as written, NOT include a severability clause (as many pieces of legislation do)? If so, wouldn’t this render the whole law void and not just the mandate language?…

Gohawgs on August 12, 2011 at 5:59 PM

crr6′s lawyer friends forgot to put that in. Actually as I recall it was put in and then taken out at the last minute?

As Noel at NB told us in February

n the wake of Monday’s ruling by a Florida judge to toss out ObamaCare as a result of the individual mandate, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell asked liberal constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley Tuesday if the Democrats made a mistake not writing a severability clause into the law.

O’DONNELL: Jonathan, the Democrats made a mistake of not writing into the law that the bill is what they call “severable,” meaning if courts find bits of it unconstitutional, they can simply sever those bits from the rest of the law. Democrats insist that severability is implicit in this kind of law. Who’s right?

TURLEY: Well, first of all, it was a colossal mistake not to have a severability clause in this legislation. It’s a standard clause in bills. It is not clear why it was kept out. Some people say it was a blunder. Other suggests and I know you know, there’s some suspicion that it might be a sort of game of chicken, that they wanted to make clear, if you take out the individual mandate, you are risking the entire bill to sort of give these judges a bit of sticker shock.

But either way, it was a mistake. It opened the door to allow a judge like Judge Vinson to strike the entire act. Now, it is certainly true that you do not need a severability clause for a judge to sever provision. And, in fact, that’s exactly what Judge Hudson did in the Virginia. He was encouraged to strike down the entire law of Virginia and he chose not to. I agree with that decision. I think he did the right thing there.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/02/02/lawrence-odonnell-democrats-made-huge-mistake-not-writing-severabilit#ixzz1UrANIY8U

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Not your usual nonsense about how Congress is only limited by their own conscience.

PetecminMd on August 12, 2011 at 6:10 PM

…and as you surely know, that’s a misrepresentation of my position.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM

While a federal appeals court ruled today that the mandate in Obamacare requiring individuals to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dismissed a question in 2009 about Congress’ constitutional authority to impose such a mandate.

At the U.S. Capitol on Oct. 22, 2009, CNSNews.com asked Leahy, “Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?”

Leahy said, “We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority? … Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.”

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 6:27 PM

That the reasoning in the opinion is simple, clear, and logical.

PetecminMd on August 12, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Actually in my opinion it’s convoluted and over 200 pages long.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 6:28 PM

I believe the Florida judge had it right, especially when it came to severability, so the question is: Did the Clinton appointed judge give them an opening to salvage part of it?

In the real world, this law would have been repealed and they would have started over again. If the Democrats get to Rahm through all of this secret stuff and just give up on the mandate, the country is still screwed.

Vote Republican and only be called a racist one more time.

bflat879 on August 12, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Unless a rehearing or a rehearing en banc were to overturn the 11th Circuit’s decision, the thing that matters is that we have a conflict among the circuits. And in the case of an issue of such consequence, SCOTUS will invariably take the case.

Start placing your bets on whether Kagan will recuse herself and how SCOTUS will come down.

BuckeyeSam on August 12, 2011 at 6:40 PM

If I don’t own a car, I’m NOT mandated to purchase car insurance, so blow your “mandated to purchase insurance” theory out any orifice you wish….sorta like Barney Frank.

dthorny on August 12, 2011 at 6:42 PM

In the real world, this law would have been repealed and they would have started over again.

bflat879 on August 12, 2011 at 6:39 PM

The Democrats knew they would never have enough time to do that. Which is way they rammed this crap sandwich thru so quickly.

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Start placing your bets on whether Kagan will recuse herself and how SCOTUS will come down.

BuckeyeSam on August 12, 2011 at 6:40 PM

She won’t. She’s a Democrat, after all.

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 6:44 PM

She won’t. She’s a Democrat, after all.

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 6:44 PM

A democrat? I thought she was a pearl necklace wearing, female softball player* who believes the court can mandate you to purchase anything they want.

*Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

dthorny on August 12, 2011 at 6:52 PM

He had to have a claims adjuster explain to him the terms of his own auto insurance policy. Pathetic.
AZCoyote on August 12, 2011 at 3:56 PM

No need to unseal his college transcripts……………. the man’s intelligence is no longer in question!

DSchoen on August 12, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Any way you look at it, this is a huge victory for anyone wanting a single payer system. Mashman on August 12, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Blahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

That’s a good one!

If you couldn’t get “single payer” thru with the anomaly of Dictator power, Super majority in the Senate massive majority in the lower house and the Presidency along with the MSM giving 100% backing to this Cabal you can’t get it thru!

The people don’t want it.

DSchoen on August 12, 2011 at 7:18 PM

Ah yes, just think of what Stalin coulda done if he only had the Commerce Clause.

Akzed on August 12, 2011 at 3:59 PM

I’m pretty sure Pol Pot cited it often….

viking01 on August 12, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Actually it’s convoluted and over 200 pages long.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM

So are War and Peace and Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Just because you have trouble following it is in no way universally applicable.

viking01 on August 12, 2011 at 7:22 PM

If I don’t own a car, I’m NOT mandated to purchase car insurance, so blow your “mandated to purchase insurance” theory out any orifice you wish….sorta like Barney Frank.

dthorny on August 12, 2011 at 6:42 PM

You still aren’t mandated. At least not in the way ObamaCare works. ObamaCare requires you to both carry insurance and prove annually you have said insurance or else be fined. With auto insurance you only ever have to provide proof when you get pulled over for a moving violation or you are in an accident.

NotCoach on August 12, 2011 at 7:41 PM

OT-I posted this in a another thread.

O’bama and the Democrats’ carefully planned destruction of the Private Sector Economy scored another success today, as the world-famous Balsams Grand Resort Hotel in Dixville Notch announced late this afternoon it was closing its doors. It opened at the end of the Civil War.

This is of course where the first votes in the nation were cast every Presidential election year. In 2008, O’bama won in a landslide, getting 15 of the 21 votes. We’ll never know how he would have done next year.

Thank You President O’bama.

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 7:49 PM

With auto insurance you only ever have to provide proof when you get pulled over for a moving violation or you are in an accident.

NotCoach on August 12, 2011 at 7:41 PM

At least in my State, you’re not required to produce proof of insurance when you get pulled over for a moving violation.

An accident, of course.

And let’s remember, you can drive a car in some States and not have to buy insurance at all. See “Virginia”, which last time I checked was Blue.

BTW, the first two States that required auto insurance? Also Blue States, of course. MA first, NY second.

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Also it should be noted that only liability is mandated, and it is the state mandating it, not the federal government…

ladyingray on August 12, 2011 at 8:09 PM

Bottom line is…you would not be posting here,on this particular thread, if this ruling didn’t scare the hell out of you.

capejasmine on August 12, 2011 at 4:56 PM

haha. I posted several times when the 6th Circuit upheld the mandate. I guess that ruling scared the hell out of me as well.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 8:20 PM

But it wouldn’t matter, I suspect you would be an “injury” attorney.

right2bright on August 12, 2011 at 4:48 PM

She’s bucking for patent lawyer. She’s stated it before.

BierManVA on August 12, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Just wandered into DU.

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 5:55 PM

I hope you gave your computer a thorough disinfection after.

angryed on August 12, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Bottom line is…you would not be posting here,on this particular thread, if this ruling didn’t scare the hell out of you.

capejasmine on August 12, 2011 at 4:56 PM

She just posts when she feels like getting a rise out of people. The topic is irrelevant, she mutters the same talking points… Bush bad, Obama good, Bush bad, Obama good.

angryed on August 12, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Anyone using the car insurance argument is a cretin.

You don’t have to drive to live in the US. Many people don’t drive. So a law forcing you to buy car insurance does have the option of you saying no, I’ll take the bus instead thank you very much.

When the govt says you have to buy health insurance, there is no Plan B. It’s so simple to understand why the two examples have nothing in common. But for a liberal, as with all thing, it’s hard.

angryed on August 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Anyone using the car insurance argument is a cretin…

angryed on August 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Yep. If that’s all they have, we will win this hands-down.

slickwillie2001 on August 12, 2011 at 8:58 PM

I need to vent here. I was so seriously pissed off when they changed all of the rules in Congress, wrote this bill in private, inserted language at the last minute, pulled the reconciliation trick to avoid the scott brown election and filibuster. I felt they slapped us in the face and look upon us as indentured servants.

I also have faith we can get this boondoggled overturned by SCOTUS or repealed in 2013 when we have an overwhelming takeover of congress and the white house by freedom loving patriots.

However, I never thought this law would jeopardize my personal insurance coverage that I have worked so hard to find, become eligible for as a self employed individual with pre-existing conditions, and secure coverage. I pay $544 per month for mediocre coverage.

The kind of plan I found was when I moved into my new area, as long as I either joined a certain credit union or chamber of commerce, I could get an HMO policy with a large provider in this local area (local provider). So I joined that credit union and got my coverage. I did not opt into the new “qualified” obamacare plans and continued to pay for the older, better coverage I had when I started with them 5 years ago.

Today I received a thick package to determine my “group eligibility” for employer groups of 2 or more. There is a lot of paperwork to fill out, including W2 forms, etc. I am self employed, I don’t get W2s. Now I have to worry all weekend until I can call them on Monday and find out if I am losing my coverage because they are canceling this program.

I can NOT TELL YOU how pissed off I am and I have 3 long days before Monday where I can make a phone call and find out how screwed I am or not.

I hate that poser that occupies the white house. He has to be gone, and it can’t happen soon enough.

karenhasfreedom on August 12, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Also it should be noted that only liability is mandated, and it is the state mandating it, not the federal government…

ladyingray on August 12, 2011 at 8:09 PM

And guess what? You can easily drive from a State with no insurance requirements into one that does require insurance, and no one will hold you at a checkpoint (or Toll Gate LOL) at the Border to make you have auto insurance before you can drive in their State.

Driving is a privilege, not a Right. Same with Health Care. If this is upheld,next up will be telling us where and how we can take a crap.

Oh, I forgot. They already do that.

Del Dolemonte on August 12, 2011 at 10:33 PM

In case it hasn’t been posted elsewhere here’s another ruling against Zero as reported not long ago by the AssPress:

. U.S. District Judge Nancy Freudenthal ruled in favor of a petroleum industry group, the Western Energy Alliance, in its lawsuit against the federal government, including Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. The ruling reinstates Bush-era expedited oil and gas drilling under provisions called categorical exclusions on federal lands nationwide, Freudenthal said.

viking01 on August 12, 2011 at 11:23 PM

–Encouraging that the 11th circuit confirmed the obvious.

– Good that it will finally go to SCOTUS.

– Highly questionable that they ignored the lack of a severability clause. (Doesn’t the content of the law matter? Are judges always so willing to read in whatever the law lacks, rather than assume the legislators should have made the law say exactly what they wanted it to say?)

– Ridiculous that the law stays in effect all this time while legal challenges work their way through the courts, even while its regulations contribute to the downgrade of our credit.

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 12, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Jerome Horwitz on August 12, 2011 at 4:11 PM

When you can figure out what “apparent preordination” means, get back to us and we’ll show you the depth of your ignorance.

csdeven on August 13, 2011 at 12:11 AM

…and as you surely know, that’s a misrepresentation of my position.

crr6 on August 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM

How so?

Outside of a few absolute non-starters, what can’t Congress do in your worldview? They can declare War on Kiribati, but they won’t. They could ban fast food, salt and trans fats as a necessary and proper means of controlling rising health care costs due to obesity, but they won’t. They could mandate that everyone purchase a GM vehicle, but they won’t.

They can’t mandate that I buy a Koran, and they can’t ask me to quote scripture before I’m eligible for my SS check.

Good Solid B-Plus on August 13, 2011 at 12:15 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on August 13, 2011 at 12:15 AM

A point I (and Proud Rino) have repeatedly made is that even if there were no judicially-enforced limitations on Congress’ Article I powers, the democratic structure set up by the Constitution would still provide very meaningful political checks on governmental power. So even if SCOTUS closed down and refused to ever take up a case again, it would be dishonest for you guys to claim (as you often do) there are “no limits” on the federal government’s powers.

But I’ve also repeatedly said that there should in fact be judicially enforceable limitations on Congress’ powers in addition to to those political checks. I’ve listed what I think those judicially enforced limitations should be many, many times.

Frankly it’s not a very complex concept to understand. So stop saying I think the only limit on Congressional power should be that “Congress won’t do it” or “Congress’ conscience.” You’re either stupid or you’re being willfully obtuse. I’ll just ignore you if you use that straw man in the future.

crr6 on August 13, 2011 at 1:37 AM

I recall there were many such rulings over FDR’s many power grabs.
He just founds ways around it.
And so too will these people.
It all comes down to the 10th.
The states have abrogated their power to the Fed.
They had no right to do so.
The Fed is not the sole abritor of what is or is not Constitutional.
The states have every right to refuse to cooperate with onerous power grabs like Obamacare.

Badger40 on August 13, 2011 at 10:39 AM

BTW, has anyone talked about how this mandate will be enforced if it is found to be constitutional? Are we all going to have to send in proof of insurance with our tax returns every year? What about people who file a 1040-EZ online? Are the insurance companies going to have to report to the IRS with some kind of new form? Isn’t this going to create yet another giant bureaucracy and add more costs to the system?

I’ve always been really big on implementation analysis of any new government program, and this one looks to be FUBAR from top to bottom. Surely, surely we can do better.

rockmom on August 13, 2011 at 11:46 AM

I recall there were many such rulings over FDR’s many power grabs.
He just founds ways around it.
And so too will these people.
It all comes down to the 10th.
The states have abrogated their power to the Fed.
They had no right to do so.
The Fed is not the sole abritor of what is or is not Constitutional.
The states have every right to refuse to cooperate with onerous power grabs like Obamacare.

Badger40 on August 13, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Actually, a good part of the New Deal was eventually thrown out by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. This is why FDR tried to “pack” the Court.

rockmom on August 13, 2011 at 11:48 AM

But I don’t understand….who would rule against free healthcare?

Crr6

BobMbx on August 13, 2011 at 2:40 PM

So passing an amendment to ban alcohol sales was uncessary? Congress could have just passed a law?

WashJeff on August 12, 2011 at 2:59 PM

It banned manufacture also. I’ve been saying this since the beginning. The lack of a severability clause negates the entire law. If one wasn’t necessary, why does congress spend the time writing them? Do they get paid by the word? No.

Its about time this socialist monstrosity is overturned.

dogsoldier on August 13, 2011 at 4:47 PM

A point I (and Proud Rino) have repeatedly made is that even if there were no judicially-enforced limitations on Congress’ Article I powers, the democratic structure set up by the Constitution would still provide very meaningful political checks on governmental power.

Only if there is divided government. If, for instance, the dems control all three houses, then there are no real checks on gov’t power. And without the constitutino, they can start passing laws to make political opposition harder and riskier. so your argument is pretty thing gruel.

Nice of you to admit how much you hate the constitution though and admit that all of your argumetns flow from wanting to do away with it rather than interpret it as written (which is true for most liberal jurists, such as Ginsberg and her ilk) “let’s use foreign laws to interpret what our constitution means”. Really, that is the kind of “reasoning” you champion?

Monkeytoe on August 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Only if there is divided government. If, for instance, the dems control all three houses, then there are no real checks on gov’t power.

Well, no. This is just baffling. Do you really think that when one party has control of Congress and the Presidency, there are “no real checks on government power?” Why didn’t the Dems pass single payer then?

When I said “political checks,” I wasn’t only referring to structural constraints which are created by a divided government. “Political checks” also includes limits imposed by the regular elections the Constitution provides for. If representatives overreach or are unresponsive to their constituencies, they’ll be voted out.

Nice of you to admit how much you hate the constitution though and admit that all of your argumetns flow from wanting to do away with it rather than interpret it as written (which is true for most liberal jurists, such as Ginsberg and her ilk) “let’s use foreign laws to interpret what our constitution means”. Really, that is the kind of “reasoning” you champion?

Monkeytoe on August 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM

I honestly don’t know where any of this came from. Did you copy and paste this accidentally? Or do you feel the need to end every post with some sort of half baked rant?

crr6 on August 14, 2011 at 11:30 PM

When I said “political checks,” I wasn’t only referring to structural constraints which are created by a divided government. “Political checks” also includes limits imposed by the regular elections the Constitution provides for. If representatives overreach or are unresponsive to their constituencies, they’ll be voted out.

That’s true of an democratic system. So, what? the water is wet.

If the ruling party has teh will – they can do whatever they want, and if there is no constitution to stop them, they can change the laws to make it pretty damn hard to vote them out.

For whatever reason the dems lacked teh will to go all in on single-payer. That is a political constraint. Even tyrants have to be wary of the will of the people to some extent, lest they face a revolt. So arguing that “politics” can replace the restraints put on gov’t by the constitution – which you were trying to do, is inane.

Monkeytoe on August 15, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3