Constitutional Law

Judge: Health Care Lawsuit Is "about an individual's right to choose."

|

If there's a single takeaway from U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson's ruling that ObamaCare's individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, it's this: If Congress wants to regulate the health insurance business, it will have to do so without trampling over an individual's right to self-directed economic choice.

As Jacob Sullum has already noted, choice is indeed at the heart of yesterday's decision. The 42 page ruling is heavy on both legal specifics and logical nuances, but also effectively underlines the larger significance of the debate over the individual mandate with the following passage: 

The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision [the mandate] would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.  At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual's right to choose to participate.

The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate commercial transactions across state lines as well as "activity that substantially affect" interstate commerce. The Obama administration urged what Judge Hudson called "an expansive interpretation of the concept of activity," making the case essentially based on the idea of economic ripple effects: Because both the purchase and non-purchase of health insurance have a substantial effect on those interstate transactions, the federal government has the authority to compel individuals to purchase insurance.

For Judge Hudson, a crucial factor in the case was determining whether not purchasing health insurance constituted a form of "activity."

Like other judges who have considered the mandate's constitutionality, Judge Hudson took time to discuss the two Supreme Court cases which are generally agreed to have established the most expansive interpretation of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. In the first, 1942's Wickard v. Filburn, the Court ruled that Congress could regulate an individual's decision to grow wheat for personal consumption even though doing so involved no commerce and no crossing of state lines. In the scond, Gonzales v. Raich, the Court ruled similarly that the federal government could regulate the growth of marijuana on personal property for personal use even if it was never sold and never moved across state lines. (For a more detailed discussion of these cases, see Damon Root's "The Cost of Doing Nothing.")

But according to Judge Hudson, the government cannot rely on the authority granted in those rulings because both dealt with the regulation of an individual's explicit, conscious choice. As he writes, in both instances, "the activity under review was the product of a self-directed affirmative move to cultivate and consume wheat or marijuana." Indeed, according to Judge Hudson, in every case where the Supreme Court has blessed an activity based on the authority granted by the Commerce Clause, the federal government's regulatory powers have been "triggered by some type of self-initiated action." Self-direction and affirmative self-initiation, then, become key to the judge's ruling.

As for the Obama administration's "expansive interpretation," the judge pushed back against the idea that economic ripple effects were enough to authorize regulation: "The same reasoning," he wrote, "could apply to transportation, housing, or nutritional decisions. This broad definition of the economic activity subject to constitutional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by Commerce Clause jurisprudence."

All of which is to say that the ruling puts the discussion in the framework where it has always belonged: An individual's right to choose, and, in particular, to choose to opt out of an economic transaction.

Much more on the health care lawsuits herehere, and here.  

NEXT: Is Medical Insurance Like Car Insurance? No, Which is Just One Reason Why it Shouldn't be Compulsory.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Post-Wickard, the commerce clause is the federal government’s version of answering the geni in the bottle with “I wish for infinity more wishes!”

    1. +infinity

      1. Does this mean you’re a genie, Almanian?

  2. Judge: Health Care Lawsuit Is “about an individual’s right to choose.”

    Cool! So all the lefties will be all over this and reject Obamacare Health and Topical Wart Removal Aid because they’re all about the “right to choose”!

    Right? Right?

    1. Oh, hell… the judge used the “I”-word. No wonder liberals are so snippy with him.

      As for “the right to choose”, liberals only use that phrase very selectively.

  3. As much as I agree with the Judge’s ruling, and as much as I am against Obamacare, the Judge’s logic, the “it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.” idea was settled with the Civil War, where the Federal Government ruled that several states full of people must be forced to participate, not just in health insurance purchases, but in the American system itself.

    1. Yes, but individuals can still renounce citizenship and not participate by moving out of the US.

      1. The South tried that during the Civil War.

        1. There is a decided difference between an individual electing to no longer be a U.S. citizen and a state deciding to no longer be part of the union covered by the Constitution.

          One pretty obvious distinction is that the state can’t “move out”.

      2. Unless a lot of them do it at once and take imperial territory with them.

    2. The issues in the Civil War were never settled legally.

    3. There’s no provision for secession in the US constitution. I’ve heard supposed historians opine that the southern states ratified the Constitution under the impression that they could secede if they wanted, but that doesn’t seem plausible. They argued over minute aspects of language in the document to prevent it from sounding anti-slavery at all, yet they didn’t push to include secession language? I don’t buy it.

      1. There’s no prohibition on secession in the constitution. It seems a bit odd that the colonies that just seceded from the British Empire would consider seceding from the American Empire to be unthinkable.

    4. Not to be nit-picky, but the southern states were seceding mainly due to the north’s insistence that you cannot own another human being and force them to work and produce wealth for you. If the south had released the slaves and the north kept being all uppity, then the south had a reason to secede.

      1. No historian I, but I believe the original causes of secession were intolerable tariffs on industrial goods from Europe – said tariffs to protect Northern industries…

  4. I have a question – not that I want to give these people any ideas…

    If they just raised taxes on everybody, then gave you a tax credit if you buy your own insurance, it seems it would be much harder to debate the constitutionality. You know, I can see this being their fix to the court’s decision.

    1. They could, but it would amount to a big tax increase, and thus be unmarketable. Thus, it was marketed as “not a tax”.

    2. The Constitution gives Congress the taxing power. That by necessity gives Congress the power to bribe people to do things through differential tax rates on different activities. The framers understood this. But they also understood that raising taxes is often unpopular and is generally harder to do than just regulating behavior. That is why they limited their regulation power and didn’t give the federal government general police power.

      1. The Constitution gives Congress the taxing power. That by necessity gives Congress the power to bribe people to do things through differential tax rates on different activities. The framers understood this.

        Except that in the days of the framers there were no differential tax rates – there was no income tax. And the taxing power was not used as a social engineering tool.

        1. Actually, tariffs were used as social engineering to some extent.

          1. Such as?

            1. To get people to buy domestically produced goods rather than imported ones.

              1. I would say that was more an effort at economic engineering – an effort to protect domestic producers – though I suppose all economic engineering has an element of social or moral meddling about it. To me social engineering taxes or provisions are those whose main intent is such meddling, even more so than revenue.

    3. Um, isn’t that what we have now? Health insurance purchased through a (government-registered) employer is treated as a business expense: it’s purchased with untaxed income.

      1. Sorry, I was talking specifically about the individual mandate. Instead of fining people for not having insurance, they could simply reward people for having insurance by not having to pay the higher tax. I know it’s semantics, but this side of the argument has already been found constitutional – unfortunately. This would be on top of any tax incentives for businesses.

        1. “”. Instead of fining people for not having insurance, they could simply reward people for having insurance by not having to pay the higher tax.””

          Isn’t that exactly what they are trying to do? To be eligible for the tax credit you must show on your tax return that you have insurance. Well, as I last understood it. This thing will get bounce around like a ping pong ball for the next 20 years.

          1. If you read the decision, you see that that was about half of the legal argument, and it didn’t fly. Mostly, if you say you’re not enacting a tax, you’re not enacting a tax.

    4. I have a question – not that I want to give these people any ideas…

      …but hey, have some ideas people!

      With all due respect, that was *insert completely disrespectful comment here*.

    5. Can’t be done because the health care reform law was carefully worded to not be a tax, to fulfill Obama’s promises of no new taxes.

      Even so, when it appeared the Commerce Clause justification was going to be challenged the briefly tried floating the argument that the mandate could be collected under the IRS powers. That line of argument didn’t hold up, and they never even tried
      using it in court.

      1. Actually, they DID try using it in court – and in fact, they pushed it pretty hard, because they knew their Commerce Clause argument stunk. But the SCOTUS has interpreted Congress’s taxing power as broader than its Commerce Clause power, so they pushed that.

        They were faced with the hurdle of the Congressional Record and many statements of those pushing the bill in the first place, which made it very clear that Congress never intended it to be tax. So the court shot down that argument. In fact, the Eastern District of VA is not the only district court to shoot down the “it’s a tax” argument. A judge in Florida did, too – although he did not reach the ultimate conclusion of whether it was constitutionl under the Commerce Clause.

    6. They lost in this court as well as in the other 2 decisions about the tax vs fine issue. The Obama administration and the Dems in Congress all said it was not a tax but a fine and then reversed course and called it a tax in their arguments before the court. The government lost this argument.

  5. What’s the difference between an activity and an economic activity? According to the Austrian School of Economics, the latter involves activities under scarce conditions. And thus you would think the federal government can regulate all activities having interstate scarcity effects. However, I think this is too much of a dynamic constitution kind of argument. The Austrian School did not yet exist when the constitution was drafted. We should look at original intent, not at future insights.

    1. What’s the difference between an activity and an economic activity?

      Any activity that you engage in and that someone wants to regulate at the federal level is an economic activity.

      Glad I cleared that up for you.

    2. How about the difference between an “economic activity” and “commerce”?

      Almost anything can be an “economic activity” by the language of the field today.

      1. Exactly.

        And of course the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate “commerce among the several states,” not “activity or inactivity of individuals, which, when taken in the aggregate, has the potential to have an effect on commerce among the several states.”

        It’s the Good and Plenty Clause!!

  6. http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..-took.html

    My God Josh Marshall is stupid. Althouse just destroys him in this post.

  7. I’m not a Constitutional Law scholar from the Harvard School of Law, but my puny understanding of the original intent of the Commerce Clause is that it was intended to prevent barriers to trade between the individual states, and not to coerce individuals to perform like trained seals for the amusement of the political class.

    1. but my puny understanding of the original intent of the Commerce Clause is that it was intended to prevent barriers to trade between the individual states, and not to coerce individuals to perform like trained seals for the amusement of the political class.

      And that’s why the first part of your quote is self evident. You probably didn’t even get a Constitutional Law degree from any school, did you?

    2. Your comment betrays a supreme lack of empathy.

    3. Or to micro-manage individual businesses. One of the healthcare lawsuits is trying to overturn the afforementioned “Wickard vs Filburn” precedent case which they believe is at the heart of the modern Congress in consistently overstepping their power. Let’s hope they are successful.

  8. You guys realize that regardles of what comes out of this case, we are screwed on the healthcare front always and forever.

    1. If you mean we are all going to die some day, yes we are screwed. But otherwise, I don’t think we are screwed at all. While I don’t buy singularity, I think we are on the verge of a second medical revolution that will represent the first real improvement in quality of life and lifespans since the discovery of and understanding of bacteria. I think the future is pretty bright. So bright that even our idiot politicians won’t succeed in fucking it up.

      1. Unless you believe that the technology involved in your second medical will be free, it wont matter much. Anyway, I have long ago stopped believing in things even politicians cant fuck up.

        I meant more that the idea that the commerce clause will ever be used to restrain government action is laughable. I dont think there are four justices that would rule that way.

        1. “I meant more that the idea that the commerce clause will ever be used to restrain government action is laughable.”

          No it is not. It already has been. Remember the guns near school law that was struck down? Things don’t stay the same forever.

          And as far as technology costing money, technology always costs money. Anti-biotics were not free were they? Yet, somehow we managed and the leading cause of death is no longer the flu.

          1. Anti-biotics were not free were they? Yet, somehow we managed and the leading cause of death is no longer the flu.

            Also, when antibiotics (no hyphen, John, it’s not an ability from Mass Effect) came out, I’m sure they were extremely expensive, to the point of being prohibitive. 100years later, they’re cheap as shit. So, yeah, the Medical Singularity will come, and it WILL be expensive-as-hell initially…but the price will come down. If humans had any brains, the price would be linked to fertility rates. Living forever will have to remain prohibitively expensive until we get our reproduction scaled down to just replacement rates.

            1. I am still not buying singularity. But I think having a quality life of a hundred to two hundred years might happen in my life time. And as far as reproduction, if singularity ever is reached or we even get close, we better figure out a way to colonize mars because you not stopping human fertility.

            2. Have you seen reproduction rates in advanced countries?

              Without immigration, they are almost all negative growth.

              1. So the only people who could afford it anyway are already on the right track. Rock.

            3. The challenge of mass-producing this drug was daunting. On March 14, 1942, the first patient was treated for streptococcal septicemia with U.S.-made penicillin produced by Merck & Co. Half of the total supply produced at the time was used on that one patient. By June 1942, there was just enough U.S. penicillin available to treat ten patients. A moldy cantaloupe in a Peoria, Illinois market in 1943 was found to contain the best and highest-quality penicillin after a worldwide search. The discovery of the cantaloupe, and the results of fermentation research on corn steep liquor at the Northern Regional Research Laboratory at Peoria, Illinois, allowed the United States to produce 2.3 million doses in time for the invasion of Normandy in the spring of 1944. Large-scale production resulted from the development of deep-tank fermentation by chemical engineer Margaret Hutchinson Rousseau.
              Penicillin was being mass-produced in 1944.

              G. Raymond Rettew made a significant contribution to the American war effort by his techniques to produce commercial quantities of penicillin. During World War II, penicillin made a major difference in the number of deaths and amputations caused by infected wounds among Allied forces, saving an estimated 12%?15% of lives.[citation needed] Availability was severely limited, however, by the difficulty of manufacturing large quantities of penicillin and by the rapid renal clearance of the drug, necessitating frequent dosing. Penicillin is actively excreted, and about 80% of a penicillin dose is cleared from the body within three to four hours of administration. Indeed, during the early penicillin era, the drug was so scarce and so highly valued that it became common to collect the urine from patients being treated, so that the penicillin in the urine could be isolated and reused.

              1. …the rapid renal clearance of the drug, necessitating frequent dosing. Penicillin is actively excreted, and about 80% of a penicillin dose is cleared from the body within three to four hours of administration.

                Which explains why we were always told to stay away from diuretics like coffee, tea, and colas while taking a course of antibiotics.

          2. Anti-biotics were not free were they? Yet, somehow we managed and the leading cause of death is no longer the flu.

            The flu is a virus – antibiotics have no effect on it.

            1. Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

            2. But the antibiotics keep you from getting the secondary opportunistic infections that actually killed you. Few people died of the “flu”. They died of something else that moved in because your body is so weak fighting the flu. so the flu death rate is much lower today.

              And if you want to be technical about it, fine, few people die of strep throat these days.

            3. Okay so vaccines. Same economic argument though.

        2. It won’t be free, but it’s entirely possible that it will eventually be a lot cheaper than now. Adult stem cell procedures are already beginning to produce some amazing results, and we’re still at the stage of experimenting just to see what might happen.

      2. I think the future is pretty bright. So bright that even our idiot politicians won’t succeed in fucking it up.

        You do realize, of course, that is precisely what those idiot politicians are always counting on – that somehow the rest of us will make things work out for them?

  9. Wouldn’t a more appropriate question be…

    Can the Federal government force people to grow wheat or marijuana?

    1. Not being a legal whiz kid, don’t have a direct answer to that, however they can force us to buy a shitload of fucking ethanol that nobody wants so Chuck Grassley doesn’t have a hissy fit.

      1. I don’t see why they can’t. Suppose there was some home made product that was critical to national defense. Or suppose they decided that taking vitamins every day was good for the country. If they can mandate health insurance, there is no reason why they can’t do that. Indeed, Elana Keagan admitted as much during her confirmation hearings.

      2. Wait….FORCED to buy ethanol? If only corn-ethanol subsidies actually worked that way…

        Which made me think of an analogy for the healthinsurancemandate:

        So, say the liquor lobby got a hold of dark magics or some mind control technology, and had complete control of congress. (Or maybe just something shiny attached to a string.)

        Congress passes a law where everyone has to buy 100L of liquor every year, or pay additional taxes.

        Now, many of us would see no problem with this law, as we already buy that much liquor (if not more), but what about the mormons and the recovering alcoholics? I guess they could just give their mandatory booze to us…

        1. Or their money, which is what it’s really all about anyway.

      3. No they can’t.

    2. During WW2 my grandfather grew hemp for the Army in leiu of serving. He was more important to the cause staying back home than fighting in Europe. Combo of age, two young children (my mom was in the womb on Pearl Harbor Day), and large plot of land were the deciding factors, I guess.

      So, they can force you to grow it, under certain circumstances.

      1. “”So, they can force you to grow it, under certain circumstances.””

        In wartime when national defense is truly first order.

        1. As I said certain circumstances. And, I think he could have refused and been drafted instead.

      2. The hemp used for rope is not the same as MJ used for dope.

        1. Try telling that to the DEA.

  10. we are screwed on the healthcare front always and forever.

    Considering the way Congress has studiously avoided dealing with structural issues in the market for health care while tinkering with the market for health insurance, I think you’re right.

  11. Wait a minute… Is a judge actually suggesting that the commerce clause doesn’t give congress unlimited powers to do whatever they feel like on any given day? Who confirmed this clown?

  12. But according to Judge Hudson, the government cannot rely on the authority granted in those rulings because both dealt with the regulation of an individual’s explicit, conscious choice.

    Translation: The Federal Government can still do whatever shit they want by regulating our choices, but cannot MAKE you choose something specific.

    Thanks, Judge.

    1. That is what Filburn and Raich said. He isnt a Supreme, he cant overrule those (although, IMO, as his oath is to the constitution, I think he should). Making the distinction is big though.

  13. I posit the same question Judge Napolitano posits to his guests:

    If Congress determines that sunlight causes cancer in the skin, does Congress have the power to make us wear hats?

    NOBODY has answered this question in a way it is consistent with the HC requirement. Not Nancy Skinner, not the other lefty blond bimbo FNC sometimes invites…

    1. Kegean pulled the same dodge during her confirmation hearing when asked about the feds forcing people to eat vegetables. They don’t answer because the answer is yes. And they are embarrassed to admit it.

      1. Judging by their rhetoric on the whole school cafeteria food thing, I wouldn’t be all that surprised if Congress passed a bill that mandated “healthy eating.”

    2. This is where understanding between liberals and libertarians breaks down.

      Liberals say, “But they won’t make us wear hats.”

      Libertarians say, “But they could.”

      Liberals say, “But they WON’T.”

      The difference is that liberals believe the power will only be used in benevolent ways, when necessary. Libertarians know otherwise.

      1. I think that you give them too much credit. They see no limits to their power, they just lie about their actual positions until they can fake a scientific study the science is settled and they have created a “crisis.”

        1. With Obamacare comes power. Congress was not interested in the specifics of the legislation, they were interested in the power they received from it. That’s why they didn’t care to read it, the only details that mattered where the ones that created power.

          1. I think you are exactly right about that. They were mainly interested in an unprecedented power grab – and frankly, the populace should be outraged.

            1. “”and frankly, the populace should be outraged.””

              In the founders’ minds, and in a more perfect US, they should be. But people have grown acustom to the feds helping those in need

        2. I think he meant liberals in the general population, not necessarily in the government. The liberals I know sincerely believe that since they get to vote, the people in D.C. have their best interests at heart.

      2. That is, until some liberal comes up with a plausible reason why mandatory hat-wearing would be good for society.

  14. This ruling will be overturned.

    Also, Hudson had a conflict of interest.

    http://tpmlivewire.talkingpoin…..g-firm.php

    He owns shares in a consulting firm that worked against the Obamacare bill and did work for the AG who filed the law suit in this particular case.

    1. “He owns shares in a consulting firm that worked against the Obamacare bill and did work for the AG who filed the law suit in this particular case.”

      Neither of which required him to recuse himself. Stop getting your news from TPM. Just hitting the link destroys more brain cells than a case scotch and reading it sends the rest of the them to the funeral.

      1. Why isn’t it a conflict of interest?

        He’s part owner of a consulting firm that helped lobby against Obamacare and then he rules on Obamacare in favor of one of his customers. How is this not COI?

        1. To be a conflict on interest he would have to benefit in some way by the decision going one way or another. The fact that he worked for a lobbying firm that lobbying firm that worked against Obamacare doesn’t mean he will benefit by the decision. He doesn’t work there anymore. He is a judge. And the firm no doubt lobbies for about a thousand different things. Unless you can show me where they are bribing him, that is not a conflict of interest.

          And as far as him once knowing the old AG or working for him. Again, he doesn’t work for him now. And he has never advocated for the state of Virginia in this case. That doesn’t rise to the level of being a conflict of interest.

          And if you won’t take my word for it, consider this. The government lawyers in this case had to have known this judge might be hostile towards their case. If they had had a basis to get him to recuse himself and take a chance at getting assigned to a more favorable judge, they would have. As it is, they didn’t do that. And that says all you need to know about the existence of a real conflict of interest.

        2. If that’s the standard for conflict of interest, then Kagan and Sotomayor have to recuse themselves every time the Obama administration argues a case before SCOTUS, since they were appointed by him.

        3. Owning shares in a firm as a mere shareholder (i.e., not a director or officer) does not always require recusal. The firm lobbied against Obamacare? The question is whether the judge would profit from a ruling one way versus the other. E.g., if he owned shares in Exxon and a case involving charges by the EPA against Exxon came before him, he might have to recuse, because a decision in favor of Exxon saves the company money, which leaves more money to pay for him as dividends.

          How would this lobby firm be affected if Obamacare is struck down? Lobby firms are paid to advocate positions for their clients; they often are not affected by the outcome of their lobbying – other than perhaps the potential of getting more lobbying business.

          And the fact that a judge once worked with an attorney doesn’t get you there either. Did the judge work on THIS case?

  15. I skimmed the decision. It appears the judge’s reasoning was “The government can’t do this because it hasn’t done it before.” However right the outcome might be, it wasn’t much of an argument.

    1. Not exactly. It was “there’s nothing in the constitution that says it can do this, and no previous higher court rulings have extended the commerce clause to say so.”

  16. Amy Goodman has already exposed how corrupted and conflicted this Conservative Activist Judge is:

    “”The judge in the case, Judge Henry Hudson, is the part-owner of Campaign Solutions, a Republican consulting firm that has worked to oppose healthcare reform.””

    http://www.democracynow.org/20…..rikes_down

    Of course you partisan hacks wouldn’t dare expose this obvious conflict of interest!

    “”AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s talk about?how the judge may benefit in various ways, including financial. The original piece appearing at gawker.com. Henry Hudson, the federal judge in Virginia who just ruled on the healthcare reform bill, calling it unconstitutional, owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that’s worked against healthcare reform. His company, Campaign Solutions, a Republican consulting firm, that worked this election cycle for John Boehner, John McCain, Sarah Palin and others. Can you talk more about this, Jon Walker?

    JON WALKER: Yeah, you know, it’s?he did own this company before getting on the bench, and he’s continued to own it ever since. You know, some people had tried to make the connection that he should have recused himself because his company did work with the Attorney General on his campaign. Basically, it just shows that he’s a Republican operative in a Republican partisan?

    AMY GOODMAN: And his company worked against healthcare reform. And his firm worked against healthcare reform.

    JON WALKER: Yes, and his company worked against it, you know.

    AMY GOODMAN: And worked with, well, the incoming Speaker of the House, John Boehner.

    JON WALKER: Yeah, you know, he’s a Republican partisan that got put on the bench. This is sort of sadly what’s been happening to our judicial system all over the place. You know, Clarence Thomas’s wife worked for a group that directly benefited from the Citizens United decision. This is unfortunately happening all over.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, Jon Walker, I want to thank you for being with us. That piece in Gawker also refers to the Huffington Post’s earlier reportage on this, as well as Judicial Watch. Jon Walker is a writer and policy analyst for the website firedoglake. Thanks for being with us today on this cold day.””

    (note from Real Person, not actually progressive liberal: the implication is always that when *republicans* have a specific partisan leaning, it’s essentially *corrupt* – e.g. he might MAKE MONEY FROM THIS!!! AhhhHH!! Whereas a progressive liberal activist who makes a ruling…? Well, they’re just *principled*! Meaning, the perception of ‘conflict of interest’ seems to emerge simply because *the person isn’t a lefty partisan*. Just as how the Koch brothers are an evil, insidious, corrupting influence, whereas George Soros, or Ariana Huffinton are simply honest mouthpieces of a grassroots movement… Also, did we mention that they make MONEY?? MONEY BAAADD!!!)

    1. Please stop infecting the blog with stupid. Or at least try reading the comments below explaining how there was no conflict of interest.

      1. John,

        I think you missed the bottom point of that post.

    2. Short form:

      Amy Goodman: The judge is a Republican.

      Jon Walker: Yes, and Republicans are bad.

      Amy Goodman: And isn’t it true that Republicans are against health care reform?

      Jon Walker: Yes, which is why they are bad.

      Amy Goodman: Man I hate Republicans.

      Jon Walker: Yes, of course, we all do.

      Amy Goodman: I’,m so glad you feel the same way.

      Jon Walker: God yes, I hate them just as much as you do. it makes to so happy.

      Amy Goodman: Spo isn’t it true that all normal people hate Republicans.

      Jon Walker: of course, that’s because Republicans are evil turds. Lets just share our hate for a few more minutes.

      Amy Goodman: Of course. Grrr. God it feels good to hate them.

      Jon Walker: I so agree.

  17. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate commercial transactions across state lines as well as “activity that substantially affect”

    I know I’m fartin in the wind here, but I’m going to have to go ahead and disagree with that statement. The constitution doesn’t say anytthing about stuff that “substantially affects” interstate commerce. It only mentions actual interstate commerce. The power comes from lying,sack of shit, power grabbing judges who should be impeached and tarred and feathered.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.