A judge has ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional in its entirety. Praise be to the morons on the Hill who decided there was no room in a bill of over 2000 pages for a severability clause.
I haven’t had time to read the ruling obviously, but I’m sure that others are doing so, and will have thoughts. It isn’t clear whether or not the ruling enjoins the government from enforcing the law, but I’m pretty sure that this will accelerate SCOTUS review.
Oh, and Queen Nancy? Remember when someone asked you about the constitutionality of this atrocity, and you asked if they were serious? I think this answers that question.
[Update a few minutes later]
Professor Jacobson weighs in:
Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient. In effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived. By contrast, in the ruling in Virginia last year invalidating the mandate, the Judge severed the mandate from the rest of the law (but denied an injunction preventing the rest of the law from taking effect).
In this sense, this decision is far more sweeping than the Virginia case, and presents a greater problem for the Obama administration which arguably does not have authority to implement any aspect of Obamacare.
In a sensible world of course, in which the Democrats had any political integrity, this would accelerate the momentum toward repeal. I mean, if I had already delegated my oath of office to the courts, and got such a devastating rebuke, I’d certainly reconsider if my vote had been wise. And a president who wasn’t power mad would be willing to acknowledge his mistake as well, and willingly rectify it with his signature on a repeal bill.
But that’s not the world we live in.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Americans for Limited Government has a release:
For Immediate Release Contact: Rick Manning (press); Rebekah Rast (TV & radio)
January 31, 2011
Phone: (703) 383-0880
Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional, ALG RespondsJanuary 31st, 2011, Fairfax, VA—Bill Wilson, President of Americans for Limited Government, released the following statement after Florida Judge Vinson ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional.
“For the second time, the federal courts have ruled that the federal government’s takeover of the health care system is unconstitutional. Congress needs to act now to defund the regulation writing on this unconstitutional law to prevent further damage from being done to our nation’s health care system. It is clear with a majority of states suing to stop the law, that it is unpopular, unconstitutional and unenforceable. Congress needs to act now to correct this mistake.”
With all Americans increasingly concerned about the unsustainable debt Obama and his cohorts have imposed on taxpayers, stopping any further advance of ObamaCare is vital to getting our fiscal house in order. First, stop any further regulation or dictates to the states. Second, repeal the law outright. And finally, move with common sense, market-based proposals to make the necessary repairs. Judge Vinson, following the ruling by Judge Hudson, has done a great service to the American people by beginning this crucial process.”
Indeed he has.
[Update a couple minutes later]
You know, it’s no surprise that unconstitutional bills get passed by a congress that contains members of a brain trust like Chuck Schumer:
“We have three branches of the government: we have a House, we have a Senate and we have a President…”
Hey, knowing basic civics is for the little people.
[Update a while later]
A summary of the decision by Dave Kopel.
I should note that it is becoming more clear now that the judge’s order was in effect a de facto stay against the law, so any enforcement of it by the administration will be in violation of that order. This should go to appellate like a rocket, if it doesn’t go straight to SCOTUS (as a result of the conflicting rulings from other districts).
[Update a while later]
Well, that didn’t take very long. According to the totalitarians, it is an act of judicial overreach and activism to point out that the Constitution places limits on the powers of the federal government.
It doesn’t make sense until you realize the bill had nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with political power. Waivers are the proof.
I predict this will stop nothing, even if the SCOTUS upholds.
The bureaucracy will be ordered to continue to implement Obamacare though regulatory changes with the same effect, just like they’re using it to get around Cap&Trade’s failure on the Hill.
Face it, the people don’t know what they need. Those of us who know best must give it to them.
I’ll be utterly unsurprised if this ruling leads to another FDR-like court-packing scheme.
That’s interesting. There was some talk in a video linked from another thread on this whether or not this case would go in front of the Supreme Court before November, 2012. The two experts interviewed thought it likely that it would not, merely because the administration would delay the case beyond the election. It sounds much more likely to do so now.
I predict this will stop nothing, even if the SCOTUS upholds.
Actually, it’s worth noting that there’s still lawsuits going through opposing the EPA’s decision to make CO2 a pollutant. And merely deciding CO2 is a pollutant is a far cry from capping CO2 production at any given level.
While I’m sure there are some steps that the Obama administration could make towards the stuff in this bill (eg, impose regulations on business owners or insurers), they frankly can’t do the key parts without funding. There won’t be insurance subsidies or the 2.5% tax penalty for the uninsured.
Praise be to the morons on the Hill who decided there was no room in a bill of over 2000 pages for a severability clause.
It may have been an oversight, but it may have just been responsible draftsmanship. Some laws are severable, but this isn’t one of them. It shouldn’t have included a severability clause.
This is sweet.
In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.
The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but whether it has the power to compel the purchase of insurance.
Lack of severability is one of the non-moronic aspects of the bill. If you force insurance companies to pay for pre-existing conditions, nobody has any motivation to buy “insurance” until they’re sick, so you have to force that too. Take away the latter clause without the former and watch US health insurance go into a death spiral ten times as fast.
“‘overreaching’ and ‘activism.'”
Coming from a liberal White House, that’s something.
What, I’m not sure. “Hypocrisy” seems too weak of a word here.
CNN reported that “the White House fired back” at the Florida judge.
Now wait a minute. “Fired back?” The judge didn’t shoot. Why is the White House “firing back?” At the very least, why is CNN using such inflammatory language?
We have to change this climate of hate, don’t we?
No, wait…climate change is bad. Ooooh my head hurts.
Is it too early to do a death to Obamacare jitterbug?
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
Why do I get the feeling that somewhere on President Obama’s agenda for the next two years is a “solution” to the problem of homelessness through a federal government mandate that everyone must buy a house?
The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s ‘individual responsibility’ provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain.”
WTF!!
Will SCOTUS be the Death Panel to Obamacare?
Oh yes!
Contrary to what’s been reported by the MSM, Judge Vinson has NOT stayed his own ruling.
The PPACA has been declared unconstitutional. Any further moves by this administration to implement it would be in violation of a court order and therefore illegal.
I guess I’m underwhelmed with the fact of this ruling. It was bound to happen: there’s no way there wasn’t any Federal judge that would find the law unconstitutional, just as there isn’t any Federal judge that would find it just fine (and there have been a few that have, I believe).
So on to the Supreme Court, of course, with a short stopover at some appeals court. What matters, I think, is whether the plaintiffs picked a good trial judge, so that he made some findings of fact that are going to stick, and made some points in his judicial reasoning that the Supremes will need to address.
The side of liberty needs to take a page from the collectivist’s playbook, and play the long game. A decision invalidating Obamacare from the SCOTUS needs not to be another Dred Scott or Roe, something so obviously political and poorly written (not to mention poorly decided) that it settles exactly nothing, and keeps the angry debate alive for half a century more. It needs to be a masterful display of rationality and wisdom, something which even the Bob-1’s of the world can respect, even if they don’t quite agree with the result.
And I guess I should say I really hope this thing becomes a big issue in the 2012 election, and it gets repealed in early 2013 by, say, a less Republican House, a narrowly Democratic Senate, and then signed by President Palin, before it gets to the Supreme Court. The Republic has rarely done well having important stuff decided by judicial fiat.
Carl, I don’t think Palin will run for President in 2012. She is far more effective in her current role. 2016 is another matter entirely.
We’ll find out soon enough, Ed. And I disagree — she’d be very effective as President, particularly in making certain heads explode on a daily basis.
I think it largely depends on what the Republicans in Congress do over the next year or so. If they follow through on Tea Party principles, then she might run in 2012 – if not, look for the Republicans to go the way of the Whigs and expect the Tea Party to morph beyond political movement into an actual political party, and for her to get out in front of that wave in 2016.
Again I disagree, Ed. Have you forgotten that the Republicans control only one house of Congress, and not the Presidency? There’s no way they can drive the agenda. The Democrats are still calling the shots, and for anything they really want to do the only Republican option is stonewalling, always a risky proposition — just ask Newt Gingrich.
So I would say it depends much more on what Democrats do, in particular the President. If he successfully pivots Clintony, he’ll be re-elected in 2012 and Democrats will barely hold onto the Senate. Only if he’s an idiot will he be defeated, and Democrats lose the Senate as well. But I would give that at least 50/50 odds of happening. I’m not hugely impressed with Obama’s smartness, so far.
Have you forgotten that the Republicans control only one house of Congress, and not the Presidency?
Nope, hadn’t forgotten that. I also remember that the house the Republicans do control is the one that controls the purse strings. I guess we’ll see what they do over the next year or so.
They only control the purse strings in the sense that any new law that proposed to spend extra money has to start there. But you can’t, for example, pass a law defunding Obamacare without the concurrence of both the Senate and the President. You can’t modify Social Security without them, either. And so on. All a Republican House is guaranteed to be able to do is, as I said, to throw a monkey wrench into any plans for new programs and spending. That’s not nothing, of course, but Americans are (unfortunately) not often bullish on the Party Of No when they feel serious problems need to be “fixed.” The situation is a lot more delicate than it may seem right now, in the afterglow of victory.