« Let's Be More Like Europe! | Main | Smack Down! Condolezza Rice Educates Katie Couric on Why We Invaded Iraq »

December 13, 2010

Liberal Heads Explode as Virginia Judge Rules Individual Mandate Unconstitutional

Good news today; Judge Henry E. Hudson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has ruled that the individual mandate part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; what is commonly called ObamaCare, is unconstitutional.

That's worth at least a hip, hip, hooray! in my book.

Responding to the ruling is the man who brought the lawsuit, the Attorney General of Virginia, Republican Ken Cucinelli:

Response to the 12/13 Health Care ruling from Ken Cuccinelli on Vimeo.

More from the AG at his Stop the Mandate website.

Of course, the Obama Administration will appeal the decision to the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, though no matter what they decide it will eventually go to the Supreme Court. Using just this reasoning AG Cuccinelli has even offered to bypass the appeals court and take it straight to the SOCUS.

Legal Niceties

A few legal details from Daniel Foster at NRO:

The ruling by District Judge Henry Hudson says the law "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power" by requiring individuals to purchase health care coverage under the "individual mandate." It is the first federal ruling against the law.

"Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market," Hudson wrote. "In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I ."

Crucially, however, Hudson refused to issue an injunction preventing the implementation of the law, and ruled that the unconstitutional parts of it could be severed from the whole.

Carrie Severino has more legal analysis over at NRO, as do Todd Gaziano & Robert Alt, so be sure and follow the links.

Bty, spare me the "so isn't this the sort of judicial activism you conservatives deplore?" What we don't like is judges pushing their social or economic agendas at us and twisting the Constitution in the process.

But What Do the People Want?

Is AG Cuccinelli and all of the other attorneys general who have filed lawsuits against ObamaCare trying to thwart the will of the people? Will the rascally Republicans take away what he people want?

Not at all. Via Powerline, pollster Scott Rasmussen has found that 60 percent of Americans want ObamaCare repealed, a new high:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 60% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law while 34% are opposed. As has been the case since the law was first passed, those who favor repeal feel more passionately than those who want to keep the law--46% Strongly Favor repeal while just 23% who are Strongly Opposed.

I suppose die-hard liberals will say this is due to "misinformation" spread by Fox News, but given that they've got CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, heaven knows PBS, The New York Times, Washington Post, etc in their corner, not to mention that President Obama has talked his head off about the subject, that's not tenable.

The Future

As I said earlier, the case will of course be appealed, and I am not optimistic about the Supreme Court ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional as did Judge Hudson. As such, in the end the whole thing will be decided in Congress; either the Republicans will repeal and replace ObamaCare or they won't.

Jonathan H. Adler, again at NRO (which seems to have the best analysis, at least that I can find quickly) points out that

Today's district court ruling invalidating the individual mandate has tremendous significance. Among other things, it will make it much more difficult for defenders of the law to treat arguments that the mandate is unconstitutional as frivolous or extreme, as a federal court has now concluded otherwise. Given that federal judges are generally reluctant to strike down federal laws (as they should be), this decision could also give other judges considering parallel suits more confidence in their convictions.

They're spinning like tops over at the Daily Kooks, downplaying the ruling as much as possible. But I think that the political winds are blowing in the right direction, and that if things continue as they are the days of Obama Care are numbered.

Posted by Tom at December 13, 2010 8:45 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1675

Comments

Obama might love to bow before foreign leaders. He might hate the concept of military victory. But he will fight when it comes to domestic issues like this. Just look at how he ignored two rulings against his offshore oil drilling moratorium.

This will get ugly.

Posted by: Obama Fail Blog at December 14, 2010 10:30 AM

How can the government use the Commerce Clause which gives the govt the right to regulate interstate commerce to FORCE you to engage in commerce?

That's the nub of the issue.

The Constituion is very clear in that it seeks to limit powers for the federal government.

Letting the Dems get away with this kind of constitutional revisionism would mean that they can do ANYTHING!

Posted by: Mike's America at December 14, 2010 2:03 PM

So I'm guessing then that it's going to be ruled unconstitutional to mandate people to have Car Insurance? It's not worth mentioning or batting an eyelash over because it's going to be overturned extraordinarily quickly due to legal precedence.


Also, the constitution, last time I checked, was designed as a living document that could be changed and it granted the government (both State and Federal) quite a bit of power. Read the Articles of the Constitution as opposed to the Amendments. Even some of the amendments can limit individual rights and I'm not talking about the ones beyond the Bill of Rights (the 11th Amendment limiting the ability for people to sue the federal government is not exactly designed to give power to the people). See the Third Amendment which states that in *PEACETIME* private homes cannot be used to house soldiers without the owner's consent (as opposed to times of war, where apparently soldiers can take up residence wherever they damn well please in accordance to the Bill of Rights).

Nice try, both of you. You should really read a history/political science book at some point. Of course, "education is a liberal conspiracy" according to most Conservatives, so I'm not going to hold my breath on that lol.

Posted by: TheBaron at December 14, 2010 3:29 PM

TheBaron's points are well taken, but b/f anyone's head explodes, consider that the the VA AG's suit petitioned that the entire law be declared unconstitutional and instead, the judge ruled unconstitutional only one part of the law and that on very narrow grounds.

So although I can understand opponents of the law being encouraged, for all pundits and politicos wh declared the judge's ruling the beginning of the end, I am reminded of pro wide out who beats his chest and does an end zone dance after scoring a TD when his team is still 30 points behind.

TLGK

Posted by: The Loop Garoo Kid at December 17, 2010 3:19 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)