:: View topic - Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge

And one of the judges that recently ruled against prop 8 is gay.

I own stock in companies that probably have shady or unsavory clients, how does that reflect on me? Not at all.
He's a Federal Judge...there are rules and I'm sure they were followed.

Meh, There are still a dozen other cases and a class action.
This is going to the supreme court no matter what this guy ruled.

does this mean the bill could start failing all over the place?

Van_Da_Man wrote:

does this mean the bill could start failing all over the place?

I don't think so. As far as I'm aware the legal challenge was only focused on the insurance mandate provision, but I don't really know for sure.

"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,"

A lot of exposure because of louis vuitton shoes the paparazzi photographed celebrities become the focus of attention of the abercrombie and fitch outlet earrings, is the nation’s current chief female hip-hop fashion, sexy sweet fashion moncler outlet design, swept the world and foreign moncler online shop stars, Britney Spears, the Hilton sisters, Madonna ,Cameron Diaz juicy couture tracksuits Lindsay.

Author:	Crosscheck [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:29 pm ]
Post subject:	Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_ ... l_virginia Mandate without a public option was doomed from the beginning. Called it. I think Squanto called it too.

Author:	Squanto [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge
Yeah, that's what I expected. (Not like I'm a savant or anything. )The important ruling will be the Supreme Court ruling, and I expect them to rule similarly. The mandate was just dumb without a public option, and even then I didn't think it was on solid ground. The idea behind it is sound; problems caught early cost less to treat than stuff caught late. Only problem is while you can mandate people carry insurance, you can't mandate them to actually use it, so the benefit to the system becomes negligible at best.

Author:	Crosscheck [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge
You can mandate car insurance, you can't mandate health insurance. Even with the most twisted interpretation of the commerce clause it's almost impossible to justify compelling citizens to buy a commercial product under threat of the law.

Author:	Squanto [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge
Yeah, even with my view on the world that was a bit much. I mean, I have health insurance. I just spend the last 3 weeks being a stubborn fuck and refusing to go to the doctor with a sinus infection. Other things about the bill are good, but this part was just iffy from day 1.

Author:	Crosscheck [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge
The problem is there's no way to implement and pay for the good parts of the bill without a mandate. If Congress wants to dictate how much risk an insurance company has to take you can be damned sure they'll mitigate that risk via premiums. A public option is the only way to do it and IMO a public option and private insurance (as it is today) can't co-exist.

http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/

Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=5116	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Squanto [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge
I don't know the grounds for a judge recusing himself, but it might have been a good idea here. Judge Henry E. Hudson, the circuit court judge who rules on this case, has a financial interest in a company called Campaign Solutions Inc. The judge has owned stock in the company since the late 1990s. This company has done a ton of work with vocal opponents of health care reform. One of the clients of Campaign Solutions? Ken Cuccinelli, the AG of VA who brought the suit. Personally, I don't think there's anything there, but the judge just gave the government grounds for appeal. The fact that the judge has profited from one of the litigants may not be shady, but it sure LOOKS shady.

Author:	Crosscheck [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge
And one of the judges that recently ruled against prop 8 is gay. I own stock in companies that probably have shady or unsavory clients, how does that reflect on me? Not at all. He's a Federal Judge...there are rules and I'm sure they were followed. Meh, There are still a dozen other cases and a class action. This is going to the supreme court no matter what this guy ruled.

Author:	Van_Da_Man [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge
does this mean the bill could start failing all over the place?

Author:	Squanto [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge
Crosscheck wrote: And one of the judges that recently ruled against prop 8 is gay. I own stock in companies that probably have shady or unsavory clients, how does that reflect on me? Not at all. He's a Federal Judge...there are rules and I'm sure they were followed. Meh, There are still a dozen other cases and a class action. This is going to the supreme court no matter what this guy ruled. Yeah, I'm not suggesting there was some impropriety, just that it's going to be made out like their was.

Author:	Squanto [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge
Van_Da_Man wrote: does this mean the bill could start failing all over the place? I don't think so. As far as I'm aware the legal challenge was only focused on the insurance mandate provision, but I don't really know for sure.

Author:	Crosscheck [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge
Squanto wrote: Van_Da_Man wrote: does this mean the bill could start failing all over the place? I don't think so. As far as I'm aware the legal challenge was only focused on the insurance mandate provision, but I don't really know for sure. Eghhh.....but that provision is a linchpin. Without the mandate there is no way insurance companies can meet the other criteria. They're not going to offer coverage for pre-existing conditions unless that risk is mitigated via the expanded insurance pool. The bill was actually written as a house of cards for lack of a better description. One part falls, it all falls.

Author:	Crosscheck [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge
Here's what I was getting at... The bill was specifically written without a "severability clause"...which is odd because almost all complex legislation includes a boilerplate one. What that means is if any section or statute is overturned, legally stopped or declared unconstitutional, the whole bill is null and void. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010 ... andate.php

Author:	Crosscheck [ Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge
The big ol suit in Florida involving attorneys general from 26 states just got a ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and since (as I previously pointed out) there is no severability clause, he's tossing the entire legislation. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/ ... healthNews Quote: "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,"

Author:	Squanto [ Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge
I just read that. Tossing out the entire thing because of the lack of a severability clause is a massive overreach. The SCOTUS set precedent that a law that does not have such a clause can have individual provisions stuck without voiding the entirety in 2009. Part of Sarbanes-Oxley, which does not have a severability clause, was stricken, and the remainder kept on the books. Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Justice Robers : Petitioners’ complaint argued that the Board’s “freedom from Presidential oversight and control” rendered it “and all power and authority exercised by it” in violation of the Constitution. We reject such a broad holding. Instead, we agree with the Government that the unconstitutional tenure provisions are severable from the remainder of the statute. “Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, we try to limit the solution to the prob lem,” severing any “problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.” Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U. S. 320, 328–329 (2006). Be cause “[t]he unconstitutionality of a part of an Act does not necessarily defeat or affect the validity of its remaining provisions,” Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Okla., 286 U. S. 210, 234 (1932), the “normal rule” is “that partial, rather than facial, invalidation is the required course,” Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U. S. 491, 504 (1985)." Of course, it probably doesn't matter, because without the mandate, the extra money isn't pumped into the system, and other pieces fall apart, but I still don't think this ruling will end up killing the entire law strictly on the severability question.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Crosscheck [ Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ruh-Roh...HCR rejected as unconstitutional by Federal Judge
well we always knew this was going to the SCOTUS anyway, but this was the biggest suit and most have been breaking in the unconstitutional direction. But you're right, severability doesn't matter because the individual mandate is the lynchpin of the entire deal...take it out and there is no way forward with that legislation. I'm thinking HCR has about a 20% chance of survival...and that very important year while the economy imploded...was completely wasted and Democrats fell on their swords for nothing.

Author:	ironyisadeadscene [ Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: celebrities
hangjing49 wrote: A lot of exposure because of louis vuitton shoes the paparazzi photographed celebrities become the focus of attention of the abercrombie and fitch outlet earrings, is the nation’s current chief female hip-hop fashion, sexy sweet fashion moncler outlet design, swept the world and foreign moncler online shop stars, Britney Spears, the Hilton sisters, Madonna ,Cameron Diaz juicy couture tracksuits Lindsay. wait wait wait, i can get all this stuff with the HCR bill?! thanks hangjing, and thank you obama!