Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Health Care

Obamacare Overturned

The Florida case of 26 states vs. Obamacare has just been decided ... against Obamacare.

The judge ruled the individual mandate that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance invalid and, according to the decision, "because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."

UPDATE: The judge stayed his ruling pending SCOTUS review, so Obamacare is still in effect. Obamacare is thus 2-2 in the federal courts, having been found constitutional by two courts and unconstitutional by two (though the ruling delivered today responded to complaints by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business).

This ruling is a symbolic victory for Republicans at the moment, as it will take many months for the case to arrive in the Supreme Court (though it is now sure to rise to the high court). However, in that time, the spector of judicial repeal will loom large over the Democrats while Republicans can focus on the need to have a replacement bill prepared for the inevitable overthrow of Obama's unconstitutional power-grab.

Categories > Health Care

Discussions - 6 Comments

Just got done reading the case Justin and I don't see the stay yet...

Also a bit confused on this: "For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is herebyGRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the SecondAmended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief."

He also says this...

"There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here.Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief isnot necessary."

Because: "Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy[Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is thefederal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of theExecutive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, thedeclaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. onJudiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officersare defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . .since it must be presumed that federal officers federal officers will adhere to the law as declaredby the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added)."

I had to go to scribd to get the case.

Lexis and Westlaw don't have it yet (seems they take time to add copyrighted material.) I wonder if the New York Times jumped the gun(they probably have legal experts)...or just assumed that it would be stayed??

Now, let's us wait for the civility of the left on this one!!

There have been over 720 waivers to Obamacare care issued by Obama. Give me a break. This is just as unconstitutional as Roe v Wade.

Two wins and two losses -- I think that demonstrates the degree to which the judiciary has forgotten the rule of law and the Constitution. There really shouldn't be much disagreement on this; Congress has the power to tax, but not the power to force commerce/contract. Seems a no-brainer to me.

I don't see a stay either. If the plaintiffs have any sense, they're going to back ASAP and get an injunction, since it's already clear the Obama administration is going to ignore the ruling.

BTW, considering how the law was enacted, by hook or crook and in defiance of widespread public opposition, the judge seems to be to have been a tad naive in thinking an injunction would not be required.

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in my previous comment. The administration has yet to seek a stay of execution, perhaps because no injunction was issued for which to ask a stay. Perhaps, also, this allows time for the affected states (plaintiffs) to take action at their level (as in one of the
AGs has declared the law a dead-letter in his state) without the federal government having much recourse other than appeal. So perhaps I was the one who was a tad naive. :)

Could answer I have seen to that question. Either that or I am not sure the law is in effect yet, standing was granted because they were small business owners, and ripeness because they had to plan ahead, enter into contracts. If the law isn't in effect and the agencies still haven't gone thru all the CFR's/informal rule making(which is still the case), then I think the Obama administration goes ahead and tells the federal agencies to plan as if this decision never came down.

Actually I am wondering if the Obama administration will argue that the legistlation can work piece meal, that is who really knows what regulations can be hammered out.

The supreme court could rule the individual mandate unconstitutional, but disagree that it is an all or nothing proposition.

Depending in part on how the federal government fights the case, the bill had a broad enough mandate statute that this could end up being all administrative law.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL:

Warning: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2011/01/obamacare-overturned.php on line 571

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2011/01/obamacare-overturned.php on line 571