Off-Topic

Judge Hudson (pg 24): mandate "exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I"

PDF of decision: http://plf.typepad.com/VAObamacaredecision.pdf

It's all politics. The judges appointed by Dems have upheld the law, and now the first judge appointed by a Pub strikes down the mandate. And if it reaches the Supreme Court, Kagan may have to recuse herself, setting up for another Roberts Court boner in America's ass. Though I wonder, should Kennedy vote to uphold the law and it splits 4-4, how they handle that.

no issue of fact, de novo

lower court decisions will have no impact

only relevant question is whether kennedy finds inaction economic activity

also its gonna be lol to compare the four horsemen opinions in gonzales to this case. something tells me their political opinions on the validity of weed vs healthcare will have something to do with it

How can one in the modern day opt out of the medical market? By choosing not to have health insurance, you are choosing to push the eventual costs of your medical care to everyone else. That's an active choice, that affects not only the well being of the nation but commerce as well. I'm not an attorney and certainly no expert, but I don't understand how this can be deemed unconstitutional.

This is the thing that I don't get as well. You cant actually "opt out". I mean, you can opt out of doctors visits and checkups and shit, but you cant opt out of getting emergency care. And that isnt free. So since someone has to pay, why should tax payers be the ones on the hook?

crossing my fingers that SCOTUS uses this as an opportunity to overturn Wickard -- the worst-reasoned decision by the Court, ever. unlikely, but a guy can dream.

RT @leginsurrection: Judge finds 400+ provisions of Obamacare "patently extraneous to health care" http://is.gd/iGiFp

Easy. Then every inaction would be "economic activity" and the Commerce clause could be used to regulate anything and everything. Their literally would be no ceiling.

The Gov't doesnt have the ability to force you to buy a private good or service. A single payer, Gov't run system would past Constitutional muster (if it could ever pass)....but a individual mandate to buy private health insurance not.

Every participates in some form of transportation. (Drives a car, rides a bus/metro, walks, ride a bike). Does the Gov't have the ability under the individual mandate to make everyone buy an American car or bike? there are cost associated with people's inaction as well.

I've said for years now....this is the reason it wouldnt work. Single payer is constitutional because its like SSN.....but politically unpopular. This plan while more politically popular....is going to have a hard time passing consitutuonal muster. No matter how well intentioned this law.

BTW...Hudson is the Judge that sentenced Mike Vick. He was also a Judge in Fairfax for years. (Before that he was the prosecutor in ARlington County)

Here's the issue I have with this argument about pushing the costs of the uninsured onto everyone else. We don't have a constitutional right to emergency care. That right is created by the government through statute. So it seems to me the government shouldn't be able to use the fact that it guarantees access to emergency care to control things it otherwise wouldn't (or shouldn't) be able to. It's the same justification that's used to micro-manage people's nutritional choices - well, if we have to pay for your health care, then we should be able have a say in any personal decision that impacts your health.

By the way, I agree with rewsde that it's going to be pretty hard for ObamaCare opponents to get around Wickard in this case. However, I also agree with tent84 that Wickard is horrible and should be overturned.

Ooh, Pubs must have reason to crow about something, cause RTH showed up here!

The slippery slope argument is wrong. The transportation strawman is laughable. The transportation market is in no way similar to the medical market, as explained above. You can't avoid participation in the medical market, while many people can opt out of the transportation market without any real intrusion or costs to the taxpayers or the populace.

Just read the opinion.

Deeply, deeply flawed reasoning.

Essentially ignores N&P clause and completely ignores the fact that the clause can mandate conduct not itself proscribed by the commerce clause (essentially holding that a law may not be constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause unless it would also be constitutional on some other independent ground, a reading which is not only in conflict with prior N&P jurisprudence but would facially render the clause meaningless in application).

lolol. If this is what it takes for a good, deeply conservative, judge to overturn I'd say 99% Kennedy votes to uphold