Off-Topic

The Republican appointee will find something unconstitutional. That's how this works. Let's just get it to the SCOTUS and stop this madness.

Judge in Florida strikes down parts of ObamaCare today as well.

The Republican appointee will find something unconstitutional. That's how this works. Let's just get it to the SCOTUS and stop this madness.

It will come down to one man, Anthony Kennedy. He will decide if 30 million people lose a chance at health care. Ponder that.

repeal-reschmeal..just join a union and get a waiver

My point is the sadness that basically every judge's interpretation of the law here is predictable.

The FL case is the more important one because it challenged more than just the mandate

"The defendants contend that there are three unique elements of the health
care market which, when viewed cumulatively and in combination, belie the claim
that the uninsured are inactive...under this logic, Congress could more directly raise toolow
wheat prices merely by increasing demand through mandating that every adult
purchase and consume wheat bread daily, rationalized on the grounds that because
everyone must participate in the market for food, non-consumers of wheat bread
adversely affect prices in the wheat market. Or, as was discussed during oral
argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular
intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate
commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are
thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system.....

the contention that Commerce Clause power should be upheld
merely because the government and its experts or scholars claim that it is being
exercised to address a “particularly acute” problem that is “singular[ ],” “special,”
and “rare” --- that is to say “unique” --- will not by itself win the day. Uniqueness is
not an adequate limiting principle as every market problem is, at some level and in
some respects, unique. If Congress asserts power that exceeds its enumerated
powers, then it is unconstitutional, regardless of the purported uniqueness of the
context in which it is being asserted

A majority is required to over turn a lower court decision.

Obama Care is a bankrupter.

This is incoherent.

"Decisions should be made through elected representives. But elected representatives of 2008 didn't take the minority party's views into account, so that's invalid.

Therefore, the decision that counts was the 2010 election, as selectively interpreted by me. The subsequent failure of the 2010 Congress to repeal the law also doesn't count.

Q.E.D."

Thats sort of misleading it being 2-2. One of those cases - at least - was a long shot that only really only challenged the law based on 1st Amendment/Constitutional grounds.

This was by far the "biggest" case of the three. In the end its moot....everyone knows that this was going to the S. Ct. The only thing this does is dispell the notion that people who argued that it was unconsitutional were not complete outliers in making the analysis.

Wake me up when a dem appointed judge rules in favor of overturning or a pub appointed judge rules that it's constitutional.

So the candidate/party that wins has a "mandate" for every position that's in his/its platform? Even if that's true, then we've got two competing mandates - one from 2008 and one from 2010. The latest one would seem to be the most valid, as it expresses the most current views of the people. There's also anecdotal (the centrality of opposition to ObamaCare in many Pub campaigns) and statistical (20 percent identified health care as most important issue in 2010 compared to 10 percent in 2008) evidence that voters were paying closer attention and voting more directly on health care in 2010 than in 2008.