Supreme Court Rejects Fast Tracking ObamaCare
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
The Supreme Court has correctly decided to allow the challenge to ObamaCare, the President's misguided so called health care reform law, to proceed through the federal appeals courts before hearing the case. In as much as I don't like the decision it is the proper protocol to follow.
By the Associated Press and carried by Yahoo News.
It seems clear the longer the time that passes before this case makes it to the High Court the less likely Obama's {and the democratic impending disaster] will be overturned.
More at Pajamas Media and Michelle Malkin.
More discussions @ Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
The Supreme Court has correctly decided to allow the challenge to ObamaCare, the President's misguided so called health care reform law, to proceed through the federal appeals courts before hearing the case. In as much as I don't like the decision it is the proper protocol to follow.
By the Associated Press and carried by Yahoo News.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court rejected a call Monday from Virginia's attorney general to depart from its usual practice and put review of the health care law on a fast track. Instead, judicial review of President Barack Obama's signature legislation will continue in federal appeals courts.
The justices turned down a request by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a leading opponent of the law, to resolve questions about its constitutionality quickly. The Obama administration opposed Cuccinelli's plea.
Only rarely, in wartime or a constitutional crisis, does the court step into a legal fight before the issues are aired in appellate courts. Hearings already are scheduled in May and June in three appeals courts.
The case still could reach the high court in time for a decision by early summer 2012.
Cuccinelli said he asked for speedy review to end "crippling and costly uncertainty" about the law.
"Expediting our case would have been the exception and so, although disappointing, this is not surprising," he said.
Justice Elena Kagan apparently took part in the court's order Monday, as there was no announcement that any justice sat out. There had been questions about whether she would participate because she served as Obama's solicitor general when the law was passed. Kagan indicated in Senate testimony last year that she played no role in the administration's planning and handling of challenges to the law.
So far, five federal judges have ruled on challenges to the law. Two Republican appointees, in Florida and Virginia, have declared it unconstitutional in whole or in part. Three Democratic appointees, in Michigan, Virginia and Washington, D.C., have upheld it.
Cuccinelli filed suit on behalf of Virginia, while 26 states joined in a separate lawsuit in Florida claiming that Congress exceeded its authority in requiring citizens to buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.
In December, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson in Richmond declared that the individual mandate, the heart of the sweeping legislation, is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Florida came to the same conclusion in January in striking down the law in its entirety.
Both rulings have been put on hold pending appeals.
In the meantime, the federal and state governments have begun to put in place other parts of the law, including changes in payment rates under the Medicare system for older and disabled Americans and a provision allowing children up to age 26 to remain on the parents' health insurance policies.
It seems clear the longer the time that passes before this case makes it to the High Court the less likely Obama's {and the democratic impending disaster] will be overturned.
More at Pajamas Media and Michelle Malkin.
More discussions @ Memeorandum
It's hard to say what will happen. Will the courts decide that a tax penalty is in fact a mandate? That's really the question. The rest of the law seems constitutional. No challenge to similar laws has ever been successful.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Essentially I agree, on the grounds of past precedent only.
ReplyDeletePhilosophically I come down on the side of the argument the entire law is unconstitutional.
For da*n sure the mandate requiring the purchase of insurance is unconstitutional.
So, if you don't want to purchase, which should be a free independent choice, when something happens you pay out of pocket.
Simple. I always had the choice pre RINO Mitt Romney. And I always chose to purchase as it was in my rational self interest to do so.
You progressives on the other hand want the government {BIG BROTHER} to take care of everything.
So why don't you just come clean and acknowledge that which you are realty after? A total state controlled economy and social system. One in which the individual ceases to exist in any real sense and individual effort and merit is secondary to that of the "collective"?
At least I, and the rest of the Objectivist and real conservatives are up front and honest. We have INTEGRITY, something the far left kooks lack entirely. You included>
It's funny that you mention precedent, because I was thinking about that myself when I read your piece.
ReplyDeleteYes, precedent plays a large part in these "General Welfare" laws.
You are honest and say "Philosophically I come down on the side of the argument the entire law is unconstitutional." Emphasis obviously mine.
The General Welfare clauses were very loosely worded. It's hard to make a definitive argument against general welfare laws via the constitution. You have to argue on the merits of the particular taxes and particular spending.
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this on your blog before: I agree that the "mandate" is unconstitutional. Of course, first we have to look at what the "mandate" is: it's a bracket-based tax penalty on not buying private insurance.
The reason it's unconstitutional is obvious: taxes are on TRANSACTIONS. How do we tax a non-transaction? There is no constitutional power to tax any ol' thing, let alone any ol' non-thing!
The pro argument, of course, is that we already tax some people more than others based on things they haven't done - like not getting married, or not starting a business, or not buying a home. But these are all one-time adjustments, rebates, credits, et al. It's not like you pay an annual penalty for not getting married, or not having kids, etc.
People like you would argue we should not be doing giving tax breaks at all. You have a fair point. That's what the whole "flat tax" and "fair tax" are all about - at least in theory.
On the other hand, people like you have to acknowledge that other people make all sorts of decisions that do not seem like "rational self-interest" in action. Healthcare is a great example of that. People are lousy about their healthcare, but they all expect the best care in the world, and they vote.
What I would like to see is a universal public plan with a commensurate tax to cover it.
That's me being honest.
As for Objectivism - it's great that you seem to be such a responsible fellow, but "rational self-interest" is in general a myth. As with every other "human science," it's all highly subjective.
JMJ
So JMJ, objective reality is now subjective.
ReplyDeleteThere really is no hope for the subjective. That includes you.