Federal appeals court rules health care reform bill is constitutional

[Vette73]

Federal appeals court rules health care reform bill is constitutional
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/29/health.care.appeal/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


Good to see they did not just write a quick and simple ruling but actually picked it apart pretty good and all 3 still said it stood up, even if they disagreed with it. Seems 1 judge really wanted to shut it down, the Regan appointed one, but still let it stand.

Oh and before the usually nuts start the liberalz judges. Only 1 is known to be liberal and was appointed by Carter. The other 2 are conserative and 1 appointed by Bush and the other by Reagan.

 

[kage69]

Activist judges!!! :O

 

[etrigan420]

The plot thickens...

I'm calling a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling deeming it unconstitutional. :\

 

[OutHouse]

lol one judge says its not and the other says it is. looks like this mess needs to be settle by SCOTUS.

 

[Vette73]

lol one judge says its not and the other says it is. looks like this mess needs to be settle by SCOTUS.

This was a 3 judge appeals panel, the ones that hear it after a single lowwer court rules. And all 3 said it stood, 2 of the 3 being republican appointed.

 

[theeedude]

LOL, I guess the AG's who sued don't even know the Constitution.

 

[Genx87]

This is headed to the SCOTUS. These appeal courts ruling on either side of the argument means little in the grand scheme of things. Meanwhile they will start collecting taxes until 2014. And just about that time it will probably be ruled unconstitutional. Think that tax money will be refunded?

 

[werepossum]

That makes what, two to two?

I too predict a 5-4 decision, but upholding Obamacare.

 

[Vette73]

That makes what, two to two?

I too predict a 5-4 decision, but upholding Obamacare.

No; it makes it 1-0 as this is the first Appeals court to hear it. i.e. a step above the others.

But I agree this will go to the SC and the SC will use cases like this to support what they say. That is why the SC did not fast track it as they want the appeal courts to do the hard work.

 

[PokerGuy]

All completely meaningless until it gets to the SCOTUS. That's what matters.

 

[rudder]

LOL, I guess the AG's who sued don't even know the Constitution.

Maybe they did...for example the brady bill that required States to conduct background checks on gun purchasers was ruled unconstitutional for the fact that it was "forced participation of the State's executive in the actual administration of a federal program" and violated the 10th amendment. So we will see who was right when this ultimately goes to SCOTUS.

The main reason may AG were in a rush to sue is because obamacare will cause many states to have to increase government spending. In Tennessee for example this relates to $400,000,000 in new spending every year to cover the new medicaid enrollees.

Medicaid was designed to be a voluntary partnership between federal and state governments... under obamacare it is compulsory. Now Tennessee has to dismantle its own state health care system to pay for obamacare mandates.

 

[Anarchist420]

While I think that it's Constitutional, I'm pissed off that it looks like it's not reversable.

I wish Judges didn't always follow the damn Constitution so much and that they would just allow us to have liberty for a change.

 

[Engineer]

While I think that it's Constitutional, I'm pissed off that it looks like it's not reversable.

I wish Judges didn't always follow the damn Constitution so much and that they would just allow us to have liberty for a change.

I'm not sure that I just read that....had to quote it to be sure.D:

 

[CrackRabbit]

I'm not sure that I just read that....had to quote it to be sure.D:

Whenever Anarchist posts something I imagine everything he wrote being spoken by Towelie from South Park.

 

[Jhhnn]

The SCOTUS doesn't have to take any case under review- they can and often do allow lower court rulings to stand w/o comment.

They also don't really like overruling lower courts, in general, so this ruling creates a subtle advantage in favor of the healthcare law.

 

[ProfJohn]

This isn't the important case. This case was some individuals suing.

The one in the south is the one that really counts since that is the one with all the states vs the feds. That is the one that will most likely end up at the SC since it has the largest impact and would be the hardest for the court to avoid.

I would expect it to end up in the SC next year or the following year.

 

[werepossum]

This isn't the important case. This case was some individuals suing.

The one in the south is the one that really counts since that is the one with all the states vs the feds. That is the one that will most likely end up at the SC since it has the largest impact and would be the hardest for the court to avoid.

I would expect it to end up in the SC next year or the following year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 6th Circuit a reasonably conservative, non-activist court? I mean, it's not like a ruling from the Ninth Circus, which seems to me to be indicative of the likely overall tenor. Of course, Constitutionality is now largely determined by Kennedy's whim.

My problem with the mandate isn't its Constitutionality; I think it will pass muster, being way less intrusive than much the Court decrees. I just think that solving the "health care crisis" by forcing people to buy insurance is along the lines of solving racism by "putting all racism on a rocket, then flying it into the sun." Nonsense.

 

[sportage]

You realize that letting people uninsurred get by on a free pass, that being the ER room in an emergency, you, yes YOU are paying for them and their outragious ER room visit cost.
There is no free lunch. Either everyone pays for their own, or you get their bill tacked onto your bill. It's your decission (well.... really not. You pay for both bills as the system now stands.)

 

[JSt0rm]

You realize that letting people uninsurred get by on a free pass, that being the ER room in an emergency, you, yes YOU are paying for them and their outragious ER room visit cost.
There is no free lunch. Either everyone pays for their own, or you get their bill tacked onto your bill. It's your decission (well.... really not. You pay for both bills as the system now stands.)

We have told them that a thousand times. They dont care. Its the church of free markets and trickle down economics and they are the choir.

 

[ProfJohn]

You realize that letting people uninsurred get by on a free pass, that being the ER room in an emergency, you, yes YOU are paying for them and their outragious ER room visit cost.
There is no free lunch. Either everyone pays for their own, or you get their bill tacked onto your bill. It's your decission (well.... really not. You pay for both bills as the system now stands.)

Do you realize that the cost shifting from Medicare is higher than the cost shifting of people with no insurance.

i.e. people with insurance are coving the cost of medicare FAR more than they are covering the cost of uninsured.

 

[Dulanic]

Do you realize that the cost shifting from Medicare is higher than the cost shifting of people with no insurance.

i.e. people with insurance are coving the cost of medicare FAR more than they are covering the cost of uninsured.

That's right because 2 wrong's always make a right... I forgot.

 

[Dman8777]

Do you have evidence of that Profjohn?

 

[ichy]

This is headed to the SCOTUS. These appeal courts ruling on either side of the argument means little in the grand scheme of things. Meanwhile they will start collecting taxes until 2014. And just about that time it will probably be ruled unconstitutional. Think that tax money will be refunded?

There are similar cases pending before the 4th and 11th circuits. If both of those rule in favor of the gov't there's a small chance that SCOTUS won't take the case. If there's a split between circuits though it'll certainly go to the Supreme Court.