Wow, another republican appointee in a red state, I'm shocked!
Yeah, send it to USSC. Get a Republican Supreme Court to overturn it and kill individual private insurance mandate as an option.
Which is funny because it was only added to please Republicans who wanted it. Why is it that as soon as a Democrat likes a Republican idea, the Republicans start to hate it? Probably because as soon as a Dem likes it they realize it's actually a good idea and Republicans can't stand the thought of good ideas taking hold in this nation.
Big deal. I'll care about the outcome when the USSC rules on it (and maybe a little when an Appeals court finally weighs in).
Well, you should care about this specific ruling. Unlike the Virginia ruling in which the judge said the mandate was unconstitutional but severable from the rest of the bill, this judge ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional and unseverable from the rest of the bill, so that the entirety of the bill is void.
So, technically, until such time as an appeals court can hear the issues and possibly issue a stay the law is unenforceable in the Florida circuit. (If I'm reading this correctly)
(From the front page of the NYT site.The ruling was stayed pending appeal.
Great news. One step closer to single payer.
The judge already stayed his decision. The law is still in effect.
(From the front page of the NYT site.
You have to specify that another republican fed judge, when they filed suit, they specifically made sure it was filed under a republican (GW Bush appointed) fed judge. although two Clinton appointed fed judge upheld it.
that's the part of the individual mandate that concerns me.In his decision, Judge Vinson wrote: “It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause.” If Congress has such power, he continued, “it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted.”
forcing people to buy health insurance doesn't seem like a big issue today, but I'm not sure I want to give that loaded gun over to any congress/white house.
Because forcing someone to buy something they can't afford, and taxing them with fines if they don't, makes it more affordable, right?
Thank you for being intellectually honest enough to point this out. I personally find it funny how when a judge rules this unconstitutional, people trip over themselves pointing out how a Republican appointee rejected it, but when it is upheld by a Democratic appointee, people not only act like there can't possibly be any bias there, but they tend to completely avoid mentioning it.
Except he is right.
This just needs to be sent to the Supreme Court to be officially shot down already.
One thing I think senseamp and I probably agree on is that the individual mandate was not a good idea at all, regardless if a Republican or Democrat came up with it. We just differ on what IS a good idea.
"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void." -U.S. District Judge of Florida Roger Vinson
if that's your interpretation, where do you draw the line at the authority granted to congress by the constitution?Well thats a matter of interpretation, and I and many others believe he is wrong.
I guess you also feel it's unconstitutional to mandate income taxes, or social security taxes, or medicare taxes? The law doesn't force anyone to buy insurance, it just levies a tax on those who don't have it. To claim the law is unconstitutional is claiming the federal government doesn't have the authority to levy a new tax.