Another Word Before You Leave Town, President Obama…

A federal judge today dismissed your Justice Department’s motion to dismiss Virginia’s case against Obamacare.

Georgia is part of a 20 state lawsuit using a similar defense, that the federal government does not have the constitutional power to enact many if not most of the parts of Obama’s heath care reform initiatives. The judge rules that it is an open constitutional question:

While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate – and tax – a citizen’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed the issue.

If I did this correctly, you can read the decision here. For now, consider the constitutionality of Obamacare officially under review.

22 comments

    • polisavvy says:

      Hysterically funny, Tyler! I am amazed (but not surprised) at the prominent Dems who will be noticeably absent when Obama rolls into town.

  1. Jace Walden says:

    I really believe that, in the end, SCOTUS will overturn Obamacare as unconstitutional. But it will do so by citing some bullshit, obscure caselaw ruling, rather than by addressing the two biggest problems:

    (1) The commerce clause is WAY to broad.

    (2) SCOTUS’s current interpretation of the “general welfare” clause is an abomination.

    Failure to address Obamacare under either of those two pretexts will only pave the way for a much more focused (and harder to overturn) national healthcare law a little further down the road.

    • Ambernappe says:

      Jace,
      In this case the correct word is “too” broad.

      Remember, school is starting soon and we at PP must set an exemplary example in our spelling and syntax, if not in the quality of our thoughts.

    • Goldwater Conservative says:

      Fortunately, this particular case (or atleast the subject matter thereof) is likely going to be the only successful repeal of any part of Obamacare.

      Despite the B/S from the right, the bill is extraordinarily popular. The last poll I read was from Lake Research and while only 51% approve of the law nearly 80% approve of what is in the law (afterall, the term “health care reform” itself has taken on a negative aura thanks to the ad wizards in the GOP).

      In my formerly-professional opinion, were I one of these republican governors I would think ahead further than merely this November. What the GOP seems to have forgotten is that for the first time in history our country will have the opportunity to allow a Democratic administration review redistricting plans in the South and a few other areas.

      I personally see these legal challenges as a bargaining chip. Obama should (and considering he is the smartest president we have had since Washington…he probably is waiting for the right moment) make it perfectly clear that the GOP as a whole needs to drop these suits or face electoral consequences. Not having incumbent Congressmen run as incumbents in their “home district” puts serious pressure on their campaigns. Just look at what Barrow has had to deal with since the state GOP moved him out of his home district.

      It would not require serious “tinkering” with congressional districts borders and placement to ensure democratic majorities in the South come redistricting time.

      Lastly, Jace. The Commerece Claus was intended to be extraordinarily broad, for one. Secondly, I expect that democratic leaders (and this happens with some many bills) put some of those garbage amendments in the bill to attract votes and leave the rest to the courts to decide.

      Afterall, why make difficult compromises or decisions when you can just pass that item down the line to somebody else. It is a win-win situation everytime. The Democratic Party had the greatest legislative victory of the last 70 years with the passage of ACA…so what if a few of the riders get overturned. They were only needed to secure a temporary majority and give the more liberal members of Congress some cover from their constituents emotional reactions.

  2. Gerald says:

    “ObamaCare” is actually “Pelosi-Care.” Obama didn’t write the healthcare bill, Congress did. Health care was never a priority for Obama. Jobs – especially in the inner cities – was, and that was one of the major sticking points between Obama and Clinton during the primary. It is unlikely that Obama would have pushed health care at all, and if he had, he would have tried harder to get GOP support just like George W. Bush got Ted Kennedy’s support on No Child Left Behind. Instead, “Pelosi-Care” was foisted onto Obama by a Congress who was determined to get a major victory on the issue before they lost their huge majority, and (similar to Bill Clinton and welfare reform and the defense of marriage act) Obama was stuck defending a bill that he had no role in crafting and didn’t much care for because he could not politically afford to do otherwise. The left wing of the Democratic Party believes that Obama hasn’t done enough to go after Wall Street and is upset that he is basically adhering to the Bush policies in the “war on terror”, so had he allowed health care to wither and die in Congress, it would have certainly meant a primary challenge in 2012, and no chance whatsoever of the Democratic party’s left flank (meaning those who represent safe districts and therefore are not endangered in 2010) working to pass what is left of Obama’s agenda in 2010. I still remember during the election when Obama went on one of the national network talk shows, I believe the “Today Show”, and stated that the economy was too bad right now to take on health care. That statement was aimed not at the voters so much as it was the Clinton supporters and Congress. Neither group listened, and “Pelosi-care” (as Harry Reid wasn’t a driving force behind that bill either, but also had to support it for political reasons) is the result.

    As to whether the Supreme Court decides to uphold the law or not, well we all know that it depends on Anthony Kennedy. I am about 85% certain that Kennedy will vote to side with the Clinton judge who overturned the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law, which will leave the political system with no recourse other than a comprehensive immigration reform package. (The only question is whether such a system will include a national ID or not.) And don’t pretend that Kennedy is an originalist or a strict constructionist. He is neither, so there is no basis for predicting that Kennedy will overturn this based on the commerce clause or on individual liberty.

  3. kyleinatl says:

    An overturn wouldn’t bother me provided the Federal High Risk pool could stay open, which is really the biggest thing many of us were fighting for…but ya know, anything to kill the Democrats agenda right guys? No matter who it affects and how many lives would be run through the gutter.

    • c_murrayiii says:

      Playing on pity and “the poor little guy on the street” makes for good sound bites. But the fact is, the government, as formed under the Constitution, has no role in either a high-risk pool or in any other way authorized by Obama/Pelosi-care. Are we a nation of laws or a nation of emotions?

      • kyleinatl says:

        I sincerely hope you are never held subject to an insurance company rescission at any point in your life.

Comments are closed.