Florida Judge Rules Individual Mandate "healthcare" Unconstitutional

[apples]

how can this be?!?!?  teh one is a consitutional scholar?  (aka a guest lecturer, but the MSM will never tell you that)

Then again the only constitution he wants is none.

[JohnBrowdie]

wrong on citizens united.  wrong on obamacare.  likely to be proven wrong on sb1070.  for a constitutional expert, he sure is wrong on constitutional issues a lot.

[apples]

wrong on citizens united.  wrong on obamacare.  likely to be proven wrong on sb1070.  for a constitutional expert, he sure is wrong on constitutional issues a lot.

the only constitutional issues he is about is how to destroy the Constitution.

[apples]

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0111/w_h_accuses_judge_of_overreaching_dfe93f74-7bd1-486a-8a8d-28472ad2fb01.html

JUDGE WHO? -- The White House says a ruling by a federal judge against the new health care law is an example of judicial "overreaching" and "activism."

"This ruling is well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion," Stephanie Cutter, an assistant to President Obama, wrote on the White House's blog after Judge Roger Vinson in Florida ruled that the entire law is unconstitutional. "Today’s ruling ... is a plain case of judicial overreaching. The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s 'individual responsibility' provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain."

Cutter accused the judge of putting "all of the new benefits, cost savings and patient protections that were included in the law at risk." She added, "We don’t believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld and we are confident that the Affordable Care Act will ultimately be declared constitutional by the courts."

The Justice Department said it will appeal the ruling..

White House spin mode  /o

[JohnBrowdie]

striking down an unconstitutional law is not activist.  weenies.

[JohnBrowdie]

they are saying that it is constitutional because they think it needs to be constitutional, not because the law remains (or the actions of congress in passing this law) within the bounds set forth in the constitution.   and that is the living document theory at work.  "the constitution means what I damn well want it to mean".

"This ruling is well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion," Stephanie Cutter, an assistant to President Obama, wrote on the White House's blog after Judge Roger Vinson in Florida ruled that the entire law is unconstitutional. "Today’s ruling ... is a plain case of judicial overreaching. The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s 'individual responsibility' provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain."

[GeronL]

lol. I knew they say something like that. Accusing them of activism is soooooo hypocritical

[apples]

lol. I knew they say something like that. Accusing them of activism is soooooo hypocritical

I guess to them we are activist?

[GeronL]

I guess to them we are activist?

That would make them the establishment. or the man. Don't trust the man, man.

[JohnBrowdie]

irony is operating on several different levels here.  the severability language was taken out in the senate in order to preserve all of the side deals that bought several senators' votes.  that one is arguable, because the whole bill probably collapses if the individual mandate is cut out of the bill.  so it stands or falls in it's entirety anyway.

but PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE obama ran hard against the individual mandate, which hillary supported.  he held it up to some ridicule, and wondered if it was possible, advisable, or legal.