Obamacare

Judge Clarifies That When He Declared ObamaCare Void, He Really Meant It

|

What does it mean when a federal judge declares the whole of a major federal law "void"? The answer might seem obvious, but for the federal government, it's proven something of a head-scratcher. After Judge Roger Vinson voided the entirety of last year's health care overhaul legislation at the end of January, a few states halted work on the law, but the Obama administration continued on with implementation—and only recently requested a "clarification."

Today, Vinson released an updated ruling clarifying that when he said the law "must be declared void," he wasn't just pulling random words out of the dictionary. The original ruling, according to Vinson, was "expected to be treated as the 'practical' and 'functional equivalent of an injunction.'" In other words, it was a pretty straightforward order to cease, desist, and generally cut it out. 

However, along with the clarification, he also issued a stay of his own ruling—essentially setting it aside, at least temporarily. So for the time being, implementation will go forward. But that stay came with a requirement: If the federal government wants to keep the stay, it must file an appeal of Vinson's original ruling within seven days. Otherwise, the stay is over. Why the insistence on a quick start to the appeals process? Cato's Michael Cannon explains:

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs, who include Florida and 25 other states, argued that the administration's "motion to clarify" was actually a veiled request to have Vinson stay (i.e., set aside) his original order blocking implementation.  Vinson agreed, and therefore treated the Obama administration's "motion to clarify" as a motion to stay, which he granted.  Vinson made clear, however, that if the administration fails to file a notice of appeal by March 10 or fails to seek an expedited appeal either with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, then his stay will lift and the administration will (once again) be barred from implementing or enforcing ObamaCare.  In other words, Vinson prevented the Obama administration from treating his stay as an excuse to ignore his ruling while the further entrenching the law.

The administration has used the uncertainty surrounding the case to its advantage—continuing work on the law rather than seeking resolution. The thinking seems to be that the the more of the law that's implemented, the harder it is to undo. Vinson's ruling gives them the stay necessary to continue implementation, but says that they can't postpone resolution forever.

NEXT: ObamaCare's Unreasonable Insurance Regulations

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. Bah, to Obama and Holder, law is only law when they see fit. This too is no impediment to their desire to do as they please.

    1. They learned well from the last guy.

      1. Well, thank ya kindly!

        1. Judge Vinson has made his decision. Now let him enforce.

          And stop calling me a bigamist, or I’ll shoot you.

      2. Please give an example where Bush ignored a court order (as Obama has done with the offshore drilling moratorium, and probably will do with this one).

        Yes, the Bush administration played some very devious games with moving prisoners around between military and civilian prisons to avoid certain judges, but at least they were playing by the rules of the judicial system. Obama just ignores them.

        1. Difference is that Bush did shady things for the purposes of evil whereas BHO does them for social purposes.

  2. “Today, Vinson released an updated ruling clarifying that when he said the law “must be declared void,” he wasn’t just pulling random words out of the dictionary.”

    Dear Mr. President:

    Words mean things.

    Sincerely,

    Judge Roger Vinson

    P.S. No really.

    1. Are you serious? Are you serious?

  3. Suderman,
    Thanks for reason my post on the last board and answering my question promptly.
    Sincerely,
    mr simple

    1. Goddamn autocorrect; that should say reading, not reason.

      1. Can we still drink a double shot?

  4. People refer to uncertainty and a lack of clarity in the original ruling.

    I thought it was perfectly clear all along. What about it was confusing, exactly?

    Apparently, Vinson wasn’t too impressed, either, since he basically restated his original ruling word for word, thus clarifying it for the hard of hearing, I suppose.

    1. “must be declared void”

      1. Well, shoot, he only said it must be declared void, not that he was declaring it void. O was just trying to figure out who was supposed to declare it void. Totally honest mistake.

    2. I remember the thread but the fact that they have 7 days to appeal is equally intriguing. RC, does it mean it will head to SCOTUS expeditiously?

      1. IOW, does writ of certiorari come into play?

      2. It means Obama and Holder have 7 days to file an appeal to the ruling, or the stay is lifted and the law becomes void, at least as far as Vinson’s district is concerned.

        This was my favorite part of the statement:

        A litigant who tries to evade a federal court’s judgment — and a declaratory judgment is a real judgment, not just a bit of friendly advice — will come to regret it.” Badger Catholic, Inc. v. Walsh, 620 F.3d 775, 782 (7th Cir. 2010).

        Ignoring a federal judge’s injunction, FWIW, is clear grounds for impeachment all by itself.

        1. Every president since Coolidge has committed clearly impeachable offenses while in office.

          1. True–the willingness of the other party to bring up charges is always the X-factor.

            1. They will appeal but I wonder if the case will be expedited to SCOTUS (rule 11 request)

        2. or the stay is lifted and the law becomes void, at least as far as Vinson’s district is concerned.

          The law would be void nationwide, I believe. Keep in mind that there are, what, 26 states who are parties to this lawsuit. I don’t see the opinion having no effect at all on states outside Vinson’s district, when they are actually parties.

        3. or the stay is lifted and the law becomes void, at least as far as Vinson’s district is concerned.

          The law would be void nationwide, I believe. Keep in mind that there are, what, 26 states who are parties to this lawsuit. I don’t see the opinion having no effect at all on states outside Vinson’s district, when they are actually parties.

          1. IANAL, but I believe: Judge Vinson’s order only applies in his district – Florida Northern. Although it’s possible to appeal this directly to SCOTUS, the usual course of action would be to appeal to the federal Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling would only be valid in GA, AL and FL.

            1. RC’s correct. The OA tried to argue it did not apply to the other states because they were litigants in similar cases but Vinson clarified with no deal.

              The circuit court is the next step but the plaintiffs would like to bypass it for SCOTUS

    3. At what point will he grow the balls to issue an actual injunction?

      1. “At what point will he grow the balls to issue an actual injunction?”

        Sorta looks like midnight after day 7 to me.

        1. He already did. Twice now, really, since the order is the equivalent of an injunction.

  5. In other words, Vinson prevented the Obama administration from treating his stay as an excuse to ignore his ruling while the further entrenching the law.

    Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down. “There’s my supper,” thought he, “if only I can find some excuse to seize it.” Then he called out to the Lamb, “How dare you muddle the water from which I am drinking?”

    “Nay, master, nay,” said Lambikin; “if the water be muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me.”

    “Well, then,” said the Wolf, “why did you call me bad names this time last year?”

    “That cannot be,” said the Lamb; “I am only six months old.”

    “I don’t care,” snarled the Wolf; “if it was not you it was your father;” and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out:

    “Any excuse will serve a tyrant.” – Aesop

    1. I’m sick of tyrants having to come up with excuses. If I’m some tin-pot dictator in central Asia or Latin America, why even bother creating obviously phoney reasons to impose edicts? Why can’t we just find a dictator who says, “everyone will move into a gov’t housing project, because I fucking well feel like ordering you to”, instead of having to contrive a lengthy justification for it?

      It’s like bad guys in movies, who always find clever ways to twist their words so that they’re not fully 100% lying. Why not just lie? You’re evil! “I said you could join your wife, so now join her…in hell!” Why not just say, “your wife is alive and well and will remain that way until you do such-and-such.” And then, “Oh I fucking lied, I raped and killed her, which I will now also do to you, hahaha.”

      1. Because so many people are, in reality, followers, and those people need something to latch onto to justify their mediocrity. They won’t follow evil openly, because part of being a follower is ultimately cowardice.

        Authoritarian policies, whether from the right or left, all depend on large groups of people who are comfortable supporting a system that drags others down, because, for many, self-examination will not happen without dire circumstances.

        It may not appear so on the surface, but authoritarians are extremely fearful people.

        1. Because so many people are, in reality, followers, and those people need something to latch onto to justify their mediocrity.

          Hey, fack you!

          1. As if the articles weren’t enough, Reason has easily the funniest comments section of any publication.

        2. ” large groups of people who are comfortable supporting a system that drags others down, because, for many, self-examination will not happen without dire circumstances.”

          I think a large part of the envy and hatred of theso-called “rich” is due to people seeing those more sucessful as a rebuke to themselves. They should have worked harder, or smarter or been more disciplined, etc. But people don’t really want to go down that path of self examination. Much easier instead to believe that the “rich” weren’t really smarter or better, they didn’t “really” earn what they have. They all just cheated people or gamed the system or something, anything to deny acknowledging the accomplishments of others and the real reason of why they want to tear them down so that they can’t serve as reminders to their own shortcommings.

          1. Because the crackhead son of a billionaire really earned what he has.

            1. No, but someone did. And here’s a hint: it fucking wasn’t you.

              1. Can you be lamer or less intellectual? Don’t be vapid just to be vapid.

                1. By the way, my comment is to Kant feel.

            2. If his dad thinks he earned it, Mr Envous, then he did.

  6. Fucking separation of powers – how does it work?

    1. (dammit, precisely what i was gonna say)

    2. I’m pretty sure the only time that phrase gets used at the White House is as the Obamas’ pet name for sex.

  7. OH! And you know who else ignored court orders…

    1. Andrew Jackson.

    2. The sandwich artist at Quizno’s.

  8. Is Judge Vinson going to count to 3? I bet Obama doesn’t want to know what happens when he gets to 3.

    1. Is Judge Vinson going to count to 7? I bet Obama doesn’t want to know what happens when he gets to 7.

      ftfy

  9. Lawyers,

    So by my count, aside from the judges that have throw out challenges to the law, three judges have upheld the individual mandate, one has declared the mandate unconstitutional but left the rest of the law untouched, and Vinson has declared the entire law void due to the unconstitutionality of the mandate. What makes his ruling special over and above the others? Why is the administration obligated to listen to his opinion over those of all the other judges who have stated that implementation can continue?

    1. I would imagine because the refusal to abide by the ruling is contempt of court, at least in his Federal District. They can go about their business outside of his jurisdiction (at their peril if they and up back in front of Vinson), but inside the 11th Circuit, they better abide by his ruling.

      Actually, I’m wrong but too lazy to delete the post. His ruling has standing everywhere, AFAIK. I can’t move from Virginia to California and avoid child support payments. If the judge finds me in contempt and issues a bench warrant, I can end up being extradited. I would imagine it’s even simpler in federal court.

      1. So venue shopping allows the plaintiffs to find a single judge that will void the entire law and that ruling stands despite what the other judges ? of equal standing ? have said? It makes sense in a perverse way, I guess.

        1. “So venue shopping allows the plaintiffs to find a single judge that will void the entire law and that ruling stands despite what the other judges ? of equal standing ? have said? It makes sense in a perverse way, I guess.”
          Prove it, bozo.
          All that spinning must have made you dizzy.

        2. The left has been doing it in the 9th for ages. But of course there is appeal to the Supreme Court.

        3. So venue shopping allows the plaintiffs to find a single judge that will void the entire law and that ruling stands despite what the other judges ? of equal standing ? have said? It makes sense in a perverse way, I guess.

          Yes.

          It is important to know that Vinson’s ruling can only apply with respect to the legal rights, entitlements, and duties between plaintiffs and defendant. Oregon and Hawaii can not benefit from Vinson’s ruling.

          Currently, there is a constitutional challenge against DOMA and Question 711 in a U.S. district court in Oklahoma. If the judge finds in favor of the plaintiffs, he can only prescribe injunctive relief for the plaintiffs, not other similarly-situated persons in Oklahoma, let alone the rest of the country.

          1. It is important to know that Vinson’s ruling can only apply with respect to the legal rights, entitlements, and duties between plaintiffs and defendant. Oregon and Hawaii can not benefit from Vinson’s ruling.

            I don’t think that’s right. When a law is voided, it is voided for everyone, not just the plaintiffs.

            1. I think that’s right on a facial challenge. But in an as-applied challenge it might work out differently. I’m no conlaw expert though.

            2. I don’t think that’s right. When a law is voided, it is voided for everyone, not just the plaintiffs.

              On the Supreme Court level, yes, through the effects of vertical stare decisis . It is not so at the trial court level.

              If a criminal court dismisses a criminal charge against a defendant on the basis that the statute is facially unconstitutional, the defendant gets immunity from further prosecution on that charge, not a sweeping court order prohibiting enforcement of that law with respect to anyone. If the prosecutor chooses to appeal and loses on the merits, then the law is voided within the appellate court’s geographic jurisdiction, and so on.

              Injunctive relief is to be narrowly tailored to address the rights and entitlements of the prevailing litigants, as the Supreme Court reiterated in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 2760 (2010) (narrowing injunction in part because the plaintiffs “do not
              represent a class, so they could not seek to enjoin such an order on the
              ground that it might cause harm to other parties”); Doran v. Salem Inn,
              Inc.
              , 422 U.S. 922, 931 (1975) (noting that “neither declaratory nor
              injunctive relief can directly interfere with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances except with respect to the particular federal plaintiffs”) Dep’t of Defense v. Meinhold, 510 U.S. 939 (1993) (issuing a stay pending
              appeal of a district court ruling , holding that a pre-DADT ban on homosexuals in the military is facially unconstitutional, of the portion of an injunction that “grant[ed] relief to persons
              other than” the named plaintiff) remanded to 9th Circuit for a ruling on the merits
              See also Va. Society for Human Life, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 263 F.3d 379, 394 (4th Cir. 2001) (narrowing
              nationwide injunction to the plaintiff in facial constitutional challenge)

        4. I believe the plaintiffs in each of these cases were different.

          If the parties are the same, there are a number of doctrines that prevent re-litigating the same issues (collateral estoppel is one). So if a plaintiff facially challenges the constitutionality of a law in one district, loses, and then facially challenges the same law in another district court, the government can raise, and likely win, on procedural grounds.

  10. The first member of the house called for impeachment today on Obama’s administration’s refusal to defend DOMA.

    It’s a shame they didn’t jump on this instead. It’s a more compelling argument (and a constitutional one for that matter).

    1. I don’t get this one. President pledges to uphold constitution. DOJ determines that a law violates the constitution, declines to defend it in court. So defending a law that they think is unconstitutional is … breaking that pledge? Likewise, Administration thinks the individual mandate is constitutional. Some judges agree. One judge disagrees but says the rest of the law is cool. Another judge says toss the thing out. So defending a law they think is constitutional in court is … violating that oath? It’s two sides of the same coin.

      1. “Some judges agree. One judge disagrees but says the rest of the law is cool. Another judge says toss the thing out.”

        Uh, pretty confused on the concept are you?
        If *ONE* judge says it’s unconstitutional, it’s unconstitutional. Unless and until Oamatrons get another ruling.

        1. If *ONE* judge says it’s unconstitutional, it’s unconstitutional. Unless and until Oamatrons get another ruling.

          And why do not the rulings by other judges upholding the law count?

          1. “And why do not the rulings by other judges upholding the law count?”

            You can get all the “yes” court votes you please about constitutionality; it only takes a single “no” to stop the matter.
            Unless you can get a “yes” from higher up, which the Obamtrons have avoided asking for. For some reason…..

            1. Only in the jurisdiction of Vinson’s district court.

              1. Awww. Does the Full Faith and Credit clause hurt that much?

              2. No the stay would apply for all of the US because Vinson stuck down the whole law; IIRC the other judges decision’s concluded on aspects of the plaintiff suits.

            2. Unless you can get a “yes” from higher up, which the Obamtrons have avoided asking for. For some reason…..

              The reason is perfectly clear. If Vinson’s ruling stands without appellate review, it only applies with respect to the litigants. At most, it would invalidate the law in the twenty-six plaintiffs’ states (assuming that the states have a protectable legal interest in the rights of their citizens)

              1. Interesting because the feds argued the opposite with respect to the litigants.

                If they don’t appeal, the law is effective for all the US.

                1. Interesting because the feds argued the opposite with respect to the litigants.

                  If they don’t appeal, the law is effective for all the US.

                  When did they argue this?

                  It certainly is incongruous with the argument they used in their appellate brief in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States . There, they argued that if enjoining enforcement of DADT is appropriate, the injunction should be limited to the plaintiffs.

      2. the disagreement virtually guarantees the supreme court will hear the case.

        1. “the disagreement virtually guarantees the supreme court will hear the case.”

          Probably goes to the 11th circuit first. Unless the Obamatrons want to ask for direct action.
          They seem to be dragging their heels, possibly because of Vinson’s arguments and a search for some fantasy ‘argument’.

          1. and a search for some fantasy ‘argument’

            They have to do some more interpretin’ because what the Constitution fucking says is just too hard to follow.

            1. Both wrong.

              They were dragging their feet because the law was in the process of implementation at great expense to the states.

              The next mitigating factor is bringing the case into the election year.

          2. They were dragging their heels because they are hoping for a death of a conservative on the Supreme Court, which will allow Obama to make a recess appointment or at least push the case to 2013.

          3. Sevo, you’re a child.

  11. Speaking of Judges, OT question…. Has Judge Napolitano done more to introduce the common man to the ideals of Libertarianism than anyone else in recent history and in doing so emerged as a hero of the libertarian movement, or is he really Eddie Munster, all grown up?

    1. Both?

    2. 1998
      Republicans: President Clinton, we’re going to impeach you!
      Clinton: That sounds fair enough, but can I at least pick the issue?
      Republicans: Fine. What will it be?
      Clinton: Lying about sex.
      Republicans: Hints of the Kultur Wars, vapid just like we like it! Niiice.

      2011
      Republicans: President Obama, we’re going to impeach you.
      Obama: Fine. I’m sure you have your reasons, but to be fair, can I at least pick the issue?
      Republicans: Okay, shoot.
      Obama: Not defending DOMA in the courts.
      Republicans: Nice!

  12. Does Suderman care to change the tone of his post?

    http://volokh.com/2011/03/03/j…..itigation/

    1. Why would he do that? Vinson’s original ruling was AS CLEAR AS DAY, and the widespread confusion and punditizing that the ruling produced amongst both left- and right-wings was not a product of Vinson failing to issue an injunction, but more a general lack of reading comprehension. I blame the unionized teachers. See what I did there?

      1. “See what I did there?”

        Yes. Pathetic.

        1. Sevo, you’re a child.

  13. Jeeze, I tried this in a couple of threads earlier:
    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..even-days/
    Looks to me like Vinson is saying,
    ‘I’m trying to e nice, but get off your butt’.

  14. a plain case of judicial overreaching was Judge Vinson’s conclusion but the administration countered with Even though Vinson declared the law unconstitutional, all states in the lawsuit already have an obligation to comply with all the provisions of the Affordable Care Act while the case is being appealed, Justice lawyers argued.

    “We believe it is important to put to rest any doubts about the ability of states and other parties to continue to implement these critical programs and consumer protections provided under this statute,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.

    Vinson’s latest is a bitch-slap that puts the timer on.

    1. “Vinson’s latest is a bitch-slap that puts the timer on.”
      Agreed.

      “…these critical programs and consumer protections provided under this statute,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.”
      That’s a PR statement, not an argument.

  15. If President Obama is unwilling to defend the constitutionality of DOMA on the basis that a court ruled it unconstitutional, why would it not apply to this law?

    1. “If President Obama is unwilling to defend the constitutionality of DOMA on the basis that a court ruled it unconstitutional, why would it not apply to this law?”
      Doesn’t follow that one law overturned = any other law overturned.

    2. Even though the commerce claus obviously gives the federal government the power to force everyone to marry someone of the opposite sex?

      1. And have kids. We need more consumers.

      2. BS. Marriage is a legal contract two parties willingly enter into. No is forced to marry. DOMA is unconstitutional because it attempts to supersede a state’s right to define that contract.

        DOMA and Obamacare were found unconstitutional for two separate reasons and must be treated separately.

  16. lol, another bought and paid for kangaroo court judge lol.

    http://www.total-privacy.ie.tc

    1. Bot is taking sides here?

  17. Obama and his corrupt Chicago Way always think they can get their way by hook or by crook. Its good that this judge is forcing them to address the issues and move foward. Obamacare is an atrocity and the sooner the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional the sooner we can go back to actualy making healthcare better!

  18. It all becomes wearisome after a while. Maybe that’s what the Obamacare-ites are banking on: malaise and fatigue.

    I remember reading…and believing…that undoing what Obama has done will take two election cycles. 2010 was a GREAT start. Hopefully, I can keep the faith into and through 2012.

    1. 2010 was a GREAT start.

      That depends on what your definition of “GREAT” is.

  19. I’m sure the other 3 Federal District Judges who upheld the health care law also “meant it.”

  20. Simply put the states will stop spending a fortune setting up for a void bill

  21. For years liberal leaning statist judges have been trampling on the constitution . Recently we’ve seen two courageous judges. Judge Vinson for protecting our constitution and the late heroic Judge John Roll who died protecting another man at the Tucson shooting. If your not familiar with conservative Judge Roll you have to listen to real news like Fox and blogs like Drudge, Gatewaypundit , Human Events, Townhall ,Daily Caller. Obamacare will not take down our country and the constitution. Thanks Judge Vinson.

    Please Check out song called teapartiers I can’t hear you at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJfboOindCo

    Here’s a verse

    Doctors are retiring earlier but we’re getting 17000 new IRS
    This is how Obama creates health care jobs I guess
    For 234 years this country’s been God’s blessing.
    Now he’s following Cloward and Piven’s to bankrupt the country I’m guessing
    If Obamacare gives Grandma and Grandpa a scare
    Think how when their rationed and die earlier we’ll save on healthcare

    Hey guys if you fought at Iwo or the Chosen
    when they stop giving your wife her meds and her last breath comes over her face
    you’ll find comfort knowing Nancy’d gladly take her place.

  22. You do realize that there are 3 over cases that went the other way, upholding the Affordable Care Act. And even Judge Vinson recognized that his ruling may be reversed on appeal and Michigan may be subject to two conflicting rulings without a stay.

    http://www.examiner.com/progre…..-3-2-favor

    1. there are 3 over cases that went the other way

      So? This judge is higher up in the food chain those rulings mean nothing now. I suppose when the Supreme Court overturn this you will say. Well there were many rulings for it. What school did you go to? Quantity means nothing if a higher court overturns it.

      1. Wrong. Different districts, my friend.

  23. Otraitor does not follow law. Remember the courts said it was illegal to implement Net Neutrality did that stop Otraitor? Holder is just a butt boy and will never bring up charges no matter what Otraitor does. I know politicians have power but how long are we there bosses going to let them break laws and spit in our faces? The whole world is up in arms over oppressive leaders. What does Otraitor have to do to anger people? Food is up No fuel because he ignores another court order on drilling. The man is a damn criminal for God sake I don’t care what office he holds.

    1. Obama has decided he can usurp the courts as well. He decided the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional thus he will no longer defend it in court.

      What is the difference between a dictator and a president that casts aside the Constitution?

  24. The administration can see the writing on the wall. The only strategy they are using is to hope one of the 5 conservative justices croaks before the case reaches the court, and to that end, they will delay, delay, delay. Expect some of the courts and judges to assist in this.

    1. Regardless of the court membership, the 2012 election will probably be determinative. If Obama gets reelected, there is no way that a legislative repeal can be enacted, and I seriously doubt that the Supreme Court will strike the whole law even if they reject the individual mandate. If nothing else, thy will rule the new taxes to be constitutional. If a GOP president is elected with a totally Republican Congress, repeal of most of the law is guaranteed. If Obama is reelected with a fully Democratic Congress, they will modify the law to make any constitutional objections moot. Only if Obama is reelected with a Republican or a Divided Congress will the Supreme Court truly decide the issue, and even then striking only the mandate will give Obama negotiating power with the Republicans that he currently lacks. If the mandate is struck alone, the insurance industry will be forced to exit the business very quickly.

      1. Your are saying the Supreme Court is an utterly political body. I don’t agree. For example, the SC just ruled 8 to 1 that demonstrations denouncing Iraq soldiers at their funerals are constitutional.

        1. The conservatives on SCOTUS have to follow the law at least once in a while. They threw a bone to legality for once.

  25. While the nations is trying to figure out how it will pay for it’s entitlement programs, the Dems pass the biggest entitlement program yet.

    The first item on the list of costs to cut should be Obamacare.

    The other problem with Obamacare is that it takes away our freedom of choice of doctor and what treatment we can get.

    1. Yes, and your insurance company lets you pick any doctor and any treatment you want, which is why the US healthcare system offers the best bang for the buck in the world (end sarcasm).

  26. May I remind everyone that the “Supreme Court” is but one of the branches of the very same government that the Constitution was written to restrain. In the end, we are the ones who hold the ultimate power, if we possess the fortitude to perform our responsibility to ensure that occurs. Well, the choice belongs to us and I fully intend to fulfill my oath to preserve, protect, and defend. What say you?

  27. Have any of you ever been to law school? This isn’t some devious judicial jujitsu, its actually pretty common civil procedure. The only thing uncommon about this is the judges order of an expedited appeal, and even that isn’t off the wall. I didn’t hear any of these people clamoring for Obamacare when 2 other federal judges ruled it constitutional.

  28. And the Defense of Marriage Act isn’t in the Constitution, and has never been ruled upon by the Supreme Court. Obama is certainly not the first President to decide a law or portions of a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional and decline to defend it in court; it’d be against his oath of office if he believed legislation to be unconstitutional and enforced it anyway without saying anything. Not to mention, section III of the DOMA (the only part of the law in dispute) is still in place, Obama has merely stated that the federal government will no longer defend in court that portion of the law, not that he won’t currently abide by it until the Supreme Court rules on it. Thats based off the federal government losing in another District Court, something most of the folks here seem to believe is binding precedent

  29. Obama has no reason to delay this case. Scalia would have to overturn his own opinion to strike down Obamacare. The law will most likely be upheld 8-1 with Clarence Thomas the lone dissenting voice.

  30. So what happened to Reason’s support for an individual mandate in 2004? Why did Reason advocate an unconstitutional policy?

    1. Got a link?

      1. Nevermind. I scrolled up the blog.

  31. I really feel sorry for you americans…

    when you are sick, you can’t got to the dr’s, or the emergency centre, you can’t have an operation if you need one you are not able to get get treatment for an illness… heaven forbid if one of your loved ones ever has a life-threatening condition and you have no “health insurance” and if its a pre-existing condition you are on your own.

    Here in the “lucky country” anyone who is a citizen has the RIGHT to healthcare, “free” by the commonwealth… yes we pay a small fee (app. $200) per year to the government to provide us all with the equal right to free healthcare.

    I personally pay for health insurance as well, for me and my family. I haven’t claim on it for over 2yrs, but in that time I’ve taken my children to the emergency room, I’ve had x-rays taken on fractured bones, I’ve seen my family Dr numerous occasions and all of this for FREE!! Except the $200 per year that I pay to the government, a small price to pay for all year assurance that I have adequate healthcare protection for my family.

    We look out for our citizens we want them to be healthy and taken care of. Its not perfect, but its a great relief to know when i’m sick or my loved one is, its not going to cost me my home to make sure that we get the treatment needed.

    Healthcare for all americans seems to be a great thing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.