Since it’s inception, the Republican Party has been going after the flawed but needed Health Care Reform package, using a twisted interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The media is buzzing that one of those cases bore fruit today when a Virginia District Court Judge rules that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. What the MSM is NOT telling you is that the judge in the case is a Republican activist who received money for working against HCR.
A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a key provision of the nation’s sweeping health-care overhaul is unconstitutional, the most significant legal setback so far for President Obama’s signature domestic initiative.
U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson found that Congress could not order individuals to buy health insurance.
In a 42-page opinion, Hudson said the provision of the law that requires most individuals to get insurance or pay a fine by 2014 is an unprecedented expansion of federal power that cannot be supported by Congress’s power to regulate interstate trade.
"Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market," he wrote. "In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.]
Hudson is the first judge to rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. He said, however, that portions of the law that do not rest on the requirement that individuals obtain insurance are legal and can proceed. Hudson indicated there was no need for him to enjoin the law and halt its implementation, since the mandate does not go into effect until 2014… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Washington Post>
What he’s not saying is that federal courts have upheld individual mandates to purchase auto insurance. Because the mandates were state rather than federal mandates, the basis for them was not the Commerce Clause. I would be surprised to see him upheld at the Appeals Court level. Two other District Court judges in other districts have upheld the law. Of course, the big worry is that when this gets to SCOTUS, there are four activist Republican ideologues, who have repeatedly shown a complete disregard for the Constitution in making their decisions.
Now, here’s the dirt.
News outlets have noted that Hudson, as an owner of Campaign Solutions, Inc. (a Republican consulting firm that worked the 2010 election cycle for John Boehner, Michele Bachmann, John McCain, and other GOP candidates who’ve placed the purported unconstitutionality of health care reform at the center of their political platforms) had a conflict of interest inasmuch as he has received between $32,000 and $117,000 from Campaign Solutions as a result of its work on this issue… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Wikipedia>
He even worked on the campaign of Ken Cuccinelli, the Virginia AG who brought the case. There can be no denying that he has a conflict of interest and violated judicial ethics by not recusing himself.
21 Responses to “Republican Ringer Rules Against Health Care Reform”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
They have hundreds of these bastards all over the nation waiting for their moment to shine. The dumb ass dims let the chimp do what ever he wanted and this was one of them-judgeship’s!
Why would anyone think this was going to be any different?
I wouldn’t. 🙄
So who is supposed to call this jerk on it? It has to go to another rigged and stacked court?
Personally, I don’t care for the required health insurance either, UNLESS the insurance is a fully subsidized public option.
Marva, I agree, but but I’m not going to base an opinion about what’s legal on whether or not I want it to be.
It seems that judicial and ethics are a contradiction in terms lately.
Since Crawford Caligula appointed 1/3 of all sitting federal judges, that should be expected.
The justice department has prevailed in 14 cases challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), so Hudson’s ruling is clearly an outlier – particular concerning the Commerce Clause. Nowhere in the CC does the word “activity” appear, in fact federal Judges Moon and Steeh have already ruled and endorsed the Commerce Clause for PPACA.
From earlier SCOTUS rulings there are two major Commerce Clause cases, Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich, in which the party challenging the CC made the claim they were outside of the stream of commerce. However, SCOTUS ruled against them, holding that the party nevertheless had an effect on interstate commerce.
When it comes to the Commerce Clause, we may be a bit more sanguine because both Scalia and Kennedy have a record documenting a broad interpretation of it. In fact, in the Raich case they joined in a 6-3 majority recognizing Congress’ broad power under the Commerce Clause. Even better are Scalia’s own words in that case:
http://paulsimoninstitute.org/blogs/?p=125
Great documentation, Nameless. May I ask is either of those cases such that the decision was of critical importance to the Republican Reich? Scalia is so corrupt that contradicting himself would not be a problem for him.
We recently saw Alito contradict himself in regards to the video game case, so I would say it is safe to say that despite existing case law and precedent, if it benefits the GOP today, these judges/activists will do it…
Amen Kevin.
You guys have failed to consider something rather important. Under the common law you can’t be forced into a contract. While I support the spirit of the health care legislation the way it has been implemented is clearly not within the powers of the federal govt. The judges ruling is correct. If that doesn’t convince you look at it from the “reductio ad absurdum” perspective. If this legislation is allowed to stand without revision how long do you think it will be before the govt has you involved in all sorts of contracts against your will. Health care …. good. Forced contracts… bad. The judge may be an asshole but, in this particular circumstance, his ruling is correct. Even assholes sometimes do the right thing for the wrong reason.
I appreciate and share your dislike for the mandate, Cletus. However, the slippery slope argument does not hold water here. The “fine” for refusal amounts to about $30 per month, and is justified to pay for emergency room care that people receive, whether insured or not. Common law is not the law of the land here. Thus, the judges argument is incorrect even if we wish it were not.
The lawyer in the Liberty University case tried to use that same argument, claiming the government could force Americans into buying General Motors to improve their market but they fail to understand the significance behind the health care mandate – everyone uses health care at some point in their life. The action of not purchasing insurance is the action of choosing to purchase health care at another time, at a higher price point. That argument cannot be said for other markets. Besides, we are already “forced” into Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, which have been upheld. This judge’s unconstitutionality of the mandate would seemingly destroy those as well…
As the Republicans would love.
You are mistaken about the common law. The Constitution is a common law document. And to say that the common law is not the law of the land is to say there is no access to the Constitution. You seem to be implying that the end justifies the means. Or, that if the burden is small enough not to be inconvenient then it must be ok. Lastly, if you insist on “common law is not the law of the land” you might want to have a gander at U.C.C. 1-103 where the common law is clearly recognized by the law merchant. And Kevin’s allusion that, since we’ve been doing it all this time it must be legal, also is not a truth functionally valid argument. SS is a tax. Nothing more nothing less. That makes Kevin’s argument invalid. The bottom line is that it is illegal to coerce someone into a contract. That’s the meat of it. And I have yet to see anything anyone has said that invalidates that.
You are correct. I intended to say paramount law of the land. Common Law is subservient to the Constitution and to statute. That you call FICA withholding a tax does not make it so. It is an involuntary contribution to the SS trust fund.
TC,
I’ve felt all along Republican opposition to the HCR bill was a talking point, due to the huge amount of $ it will bring the the industry coffers. My reasons are twofold, one is they are being partisan and gonna bitch about anything the Democrats do, second I think it’s bad legislation and the Repubs want people to remember they were against it.
When I first heard of this ruling it caused me to reflect back on my thoughts on the matter. Looking at all aspects, I hold with my original thoughts and chalk this up to different factions of the same side working at cross-purposes.
Certainly bears keeping an eye on though, man.
Oso, I agree with you in principle. Congress should revoke the mandate and use some other means to prevent the abuse of the system. The reason for the mandate is sound. If people can wait until they become ill to opt-in, only sick people will be in the exchanges and costs will skyrocket.
Given that there is obvious conflicts of interest, this judge should not have made any kind of ruling on this case.
With that said, I still agree with him. I think that car insurance laws, seat belt laws, and helmet laws are all un-Constitutional as well. We have the individual right under the Constitution to be as stupid and negligent as we desire, or lack to understand (please refer to any election after… Oh, wait, nevermind. Just refer to any election.)
No government body can force me into a contract. Yes, it is a slippery slope, Tom. How long is it before other things are mandated under the ‘common good clause’. Maybe it would be best if every child was put into day care, regardless of income. Sounds nice. Who pays? Everyone. Whether you can afford it or not. How about charter schools. They out perform public schools, mandate it. Our kids will be smarter. Once again, who pays for it? Everyone. How long before the Earned Income Credit has to go by the way side to pay for everything that is going to be mandated? (Not that any of this would happen, the rich wouldn’t allow it. But you never know…)
Finally, I do think that there is an argument to the government incompetence. I can prove government waste by asking anyone how many government forms do you fill out with the same information for more than your name, rank and serial number? Quite a few. Furthermore, every form is another 2-3 jobs in the government (probably more). So, how long is it before the argument that medicare only costs $.06 per dollar (or whatever it is. I pulled that number from where the sun don’t shine. I know it’s low, though) spent is gone? I think that it won’t be long with the Health Care Bill. I know and understand its import, but the first one is always the rough draft. Some of it needs to be dismantled so that it can improve. This is a necessary step in legal evolution.
Otis, if you are correct, Social Security and Medicare are also unconstitutional. But I think the Commerce Clause does authorize it.