From TPM:
A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that the individual mandate contained in the health care law passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama this year is unconstitutional.
Judge Henry E. Hudson found in favor of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who brought this suit separately from the other state attorney generals suing the federal government over the law. Hudson was the first judge to rule against the law. Two other judges ruled in favor of the law, bringing the Obama administration's record thus far to 2-1. At least 13 other suits against the health care law have been dismissed on jurisdiction or standing issues.
And there's this, also from TPM:
Federal judge Henry E. Hudson's ownership of a stake worth between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform -- the very law against which he ruled today -- raises some ethics questions for some of the nation's top judicial ethics experts. It isn't that Hudson's decision would have necessarily been influenced by his ownership in the company, given his established track record as a judicial conservative. But his ownership stake does create, at the very least, a perception problem for Hudson that could affect the case.
"Is Judge Hudson's status as a shareholder coincidence or causation? Probably the former, but the optics aren't good," James J. Sample, an associate professor at Hofstra Law School, told TPM. "Federal judges are required by statute to disqualify themselves from hearing a case whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It's a hyper-protective rule and for good reason. At the very least, his continued financial interest in Campaign Solutions undermines the perceived legitimacy of his decision."
Well, it seems to me that the judge should have recused himself, but what do I know?
The health care bill was such a patchwork job that individual sections will probably be challenged in the courts forever. It's a mess, and perhaps no health care bill would have been better than the bill that passed.
UPDATE: Hang on. There's a flaw in Judge Hudson's argument. From TPM again:
Legal experts are attacking Judge Henry Hudson's decision on the merits, citing an elementary logical flaw at the heart of his opinion. And that has conservative scholars -- even ones sympathetic to the idea that the mandate is unconstitutional -- prepared to see Hudson's decision thrown out.
....
Kerr and others note that Hudson's argument against Congress' power to require people to purchase health insurance rests on a tautology.
....
As a result of this error, Hudson never engages the key question in the case: whether the individual mandate is a reasonable way for Congress to implement regulations within its purview.
"SCOTUS will decide": few phrases these days are scarier than that!
ReplyDeletewv, "bilitist": as in "Daugher of"? St Del Martin, pray for us!
Welcome to the U. S. o' A., where the living envy the dead more with each passing day!
ReplyDeleteRemember, get your tickets for the "It's a Third World, After All" ride early!
wv: "swootlyv" - the sound in my brain when I read things like this.
In my opinion that the severity is another problem. I suspect that if the mandate is arranged down and enough of it remains,industries like the insurance will practically go out of business.
ReplyDeleteI can guarantee you that all the insurance companies are screaming today, probably at their congressmen.
I think the judge was right--this was heard on motions for summary judgement and the other 400 provisions were not involved. The doctrine of severability does not allow the dumping of an entire law in the absence of a severability provision, just all those provisions intertwined with the provision which is struck down. And that is exactly what Judge Hudson has done.
ReplyDeleteI will agree that it is absolutely wrong to require individuals to purchase health insurance. I have no problem with requiring employers to offer it, but requiring individuals to buy it is unwise, unless the government is going to provide an affordable sliding-scale alternative to private insurance companies. In my case, should I lose my job, I will have absolutely no way to pay for private health-care insurance, and would be required to pay a penalty for not being able to pay for insurance.
ReplyDeleteOne also has to wonder what such a requirement will do to indigent care in hospitals.
JCF, SCOTUS won't come to oour rescue.
ReplyDeleteMario, if what you say is true, then our whole system may collapse. Honestly, I'd like to see the middle men, the insurance companies, out of the health care system, except for the rich who want special care and can pay for it.
Mark, I must agree that a mandate to buy insurance from a for-profit company is a bad idea. We need a single-payer national health insurance plan, but we are farther away from achieving that than when the patchwork plan was passed.
People who do not have health insurance will be treated if they are gravely ill and someone has to pay. That is, unless we begin to leave the sick untreated the homeless to die in the streets.
No one who can pay should be allowed to freeload on the rest of us. Those who can't pay should be treated the same as the rest of us. The only way I see to accomplish that is through a national health care plan.
No one who can pay should be allowed to freeload on the rest of us. Those who can't pay should be treated the same as the rest of us.
ReplyDeletePreach it sister!
Cathy, it seems only right to me.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes. That was never an argument. I said nothing about those who can pay, but about those of us who can't.
ReplyDeleteWhile I find your sentiment about not leaving people to die in the streets (I'm not on the street, btw, but still can't afford health insurance), it simply isn't realistic.
Yes. "Good, decent" people will leave others to die on the street without a second thought. You wouldn't, of course, but the problem is that you don't accept that you are the exception. Even in Christ's time, the Good Samaritan was the extraordinary example.
I confess I don't understand the myriad gobbledygook legalese that makes up any congressional bill, so I may misunderstand, but I don't know there's any exemption to the requirement to have insurance or pay a penalty for those who can't afford it.
I don't know how many here have actually had to rely on the aid programs available to Americans, but they don't work, are tied in knots of tightfisted meanness by bureaucracy, and - if funded by donations - run out of money/food so quickly that the second week of the month means $0 available.
That's the reality that I've lived.
Why do you think I keep referring to the money raised for Katzie as "miracle" - it is. And it's because you guys are the 2% of the American populace who care - just as exceptional as the richest 2% - and I'm fairly rare, too, as I appreciate your help and don't take it as my due.
On a different note in the same musical passage, I've suddenly found myself being emailed by something called truth out. It has many interesting articles, one of the most I've heard is an 8 hour speech(filibuster) about the tax deal from Senator Sanders of Vermont. I'm not sure it is a "filibuster," as it has real substance. What fascinates me is that, while even a recluse with neither tv news nor newspaper like me has heard about McCain's filibuster of DADT repeal from liberal and conservative sources, I'd heard nothing about this.
ReplyDelete"Good, decent" people will leave others to die on the street without a second thought.
ReplyDeleteThen we will be Calcutta. I suppose "good decent" people will have to stay off the streets and do no walking at all.
I'll check out your link, Mark.