Active Users:565 Time:18/03/2026 06:19:10 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law - trzaska2000 Send a noteboard - 13/12/2010 05:21:37 PM
Let the games begin! This is going to SCOTUS and it is time that the ridiculously broad interpretation of the commerce clause is scaled back. Great day for America:

Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law
By LARRY O'DELL, Associated Press Larry O'dell, Associated Press
11 mins ago

RICHMOND, Va. – A federal judge in Virginia has declared the Obama administration's health care reform law unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.

He argues the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement.

Other lawsuits are pending, including one filed by 20 states in a Florida court. Virginia is not part of that lawsuit.

The U.S. Justice Department and opponents of the health care law agree that the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word.




*MySmiley*
Reply to message
Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law - trzaska2000 - 13/12/2010 05:21:37 PM 1118 Views
*yawn* Macharius - 13/12/2010 05:46:58 PM 783 Views
Another step closer to SCOTUS.....and that will be 5-4 decision in favor of repeal! *NM* trzaska2000 - 13/12/2010 05:55:54 PM 305 Views
It may very well end up that way. *NM* Tom - 13/12/2010 07:09:36 PM 340 Views
So riddle me this... Dannymac - 13/12/2010 07:23:14 PM 769 Views
He's not "making his own law", just denying the government the ability to..... trzaska2000 - 13/12/2010 08:06:48 PM 746 Views
That wasn't my question. Dannymac - 13/12/2010 09:10:39 PM 832 Views
I get what you're saying... Jeordam - 13/12/2010 11:30:13 PM 835 Views
Re: I get what you're saying... rempires - 14/12/2010 01:34:13 AM 863 Views
*heh* Jeordam - 14/12/2010 04:01:35 PM 772 Views
That's not all they're saying, though. Dannymac - 14/12/2010 01:42:27 AM 730 Views
At least in my mind.... Jeordam - 14/12/2010 04:10:38 PM 742 Views
Agreed; when do I get a refund for my share of the B2 bomber? Joel - 14/12/2010 04:40:25 AM 768 Views
But see...you are using the B2 bomber. Jeordam - 14/12/2010 03:59:27 PM 696 Views
Much as you are using the healthcare system. Joel - 14/12/2010 05:55:40 PM 817 Views
*nods* Jeordam - 14/12/2010 06:09:42 PM 807 Views
Again we're back to whether individuals deign to tolerate majority rule. Joel - 14/12/2010 07:27:22 PM 911 Views
Re: So riddle me this... everynametaken - 14/12/2010 02:51:35 AM 749 Views
It's judicial review Ava - 14/12/2010 02:47:43 PM 792 Views
Re: It's judicial review Macharius - 14/12/2010 03:27:28 PM 775 Views
Re: It's judicial review Ava - 15/12/2010 05:35:17 PM 894 Views
I really don't understand why people defend the forced purchase aspect Isaac - 13/12/2010 08:22:03 PM 815 Views
This analogy no doubt has its flaws too, but I was just reminded of it... Legolas - 13/12/2010 08:52:31 PM 826 Views
That's precisely the logic, yes. Joel - 14/12/2010 04:31:44 AM 779 Views
Forced insurance purchase would indeed be terribly unconstitutional. Joel - 14/12/2010 04:26:27 AM 734 Views
This judge... Dreaded Anomaly - 13/12/2010 11:26:09 PM 824 Views
there is a major problem with this.. rempires - 14/12/2010 01:29:41 AM 776 Views
Bad analogy..... trzaska2000 - 14/12/2010 02:57:28 AM 737 Views
Re: Bad analogy..... rempires - 14/12/2010 03:23:31 AM 750 Views
Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance..... trzaska2000 - 14/12/2010 03:42:26 AM 737 Views
Re: Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance..... rempires - 14/12/2010 04:53:39 AM 758 Views
Just to note.... Jeordam - 14/12/2010 06:11:57 PM 743 Views
Re: Just to note.... Macharius - 14/12/2010 06:44:54 PM 746 Views
Re: Just to note.... rempires - 14/12/2010 08:32:46 PM 742 Views
yeah, but the courts exist to strike down dumb legislation, which is what this ruling does moondog - 14/12/2010 03:17:04 AM 695 Views
No, the courts exist to interpret legislation, and the SCOTUS to strike down illegal legislation. Joel - 14/12/2010 04:36:59 AM 717 Views
I'll excerpt some relevant passages, but the full article is in the link. Macharius - 14/12/2010 02:10:48 PM 897 Views
In other words there may be a painful silver lining. Joel - 14/12/2010 07:46:38 PM 669 Views
He partially owns the lobby aiming to make it unconstitutional, which the plaintiff was a client of *NM* Jragghen - 14/12/2010 05:35:21 PM 379 Views
Update: the judge's decision is basically nonsense. Dreaded Anomaly - 14/12/2010 08:04:27 PM 1005 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes