Judge rules Obamascare unconstitutional.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by coadie

He argues the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement.

By LARRY O'DELL, Associated Press Larry O'dell, Associated Press – 15 mins ago

You're back?

[Jermyn Davidson]

So basically, it is your understanding that neither the Federal or State government have the Constitutional authority to force people to buy or pay anything-- other than taxes.


So this law should be re-written so that healthcare insurance is paid for solely by taxes.

Basically, opening the door to where the "Public Option" would be the only option that would make sense for the masses, excluding those who can and choose to afford their own private insurance.


Which is probably why, from the begining, for many Republicans their goal was to make sure the "Public Option" would never see the light of the day-- it's really the only way for the richest country in the west to insure that everyone has healthcare coverage.



If I am wrong, explain to my error to me.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by sandie

I thought it was interesting that the gov. argued before the people this wasn't a tax.
When they went before this judge they argued it was a tax.
The judge wasn't buying the duplicity.

Funny
They argued it is not a tax. The feds can levy taxes. In fact when they said it is not a tax, they spelled out hiring all these IRS agents to levy the tax, place it on tax returns and audit docs for excessive incomes. I read the bill. It is woven into the tax system.
This crying it is not a tax backfired. When you are dishonest, your own story and it's contradictions will haunt you.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

So basically, it is your understanding that neither the Federal or State government have the Constitutional authority to force people to buy or pay anything-- other than taxes.


So this law should be re-written so that healthcare insurance is paid for solely by taxes.

Basically, opening the door to where the "Public Option" would be the only option that would make sense for the masses, excluding those who can and choose to afford their own private insurance.


Which is probably why, from the begining, for many Republicans their goal was to make sure the "Public Option" would never see the light of the day-- it's really the only way for the richest country in the west to insure that everyone has healthcare coverage.



If I am wrong, explain to my error to me.

Two items of truth you can't grasp.

We are the most indebted country this planet has ever seen. Your leftist claptrap says we are rich. If we are rich, why are we borrowing money instead of lending it?

Everyone can have healthcare. Every one can pay the bill. We can all have cars. We can't steal them from our neighbor either.
We all have coverage. Some of us don't have insurance and are cash at time of service.

[Twisp]

LOL

I guess we know why Hudson ruled it unconstitutional when two other Federal judges have already upheld the law's constitutionality.

Judge Who Ruled Health Care Reform Unconstitutional Owns Piece of GOP Consulting Firm

Henry E. Hudson, the federal judge in Virginia who just ruled health care reform unconstitutional, owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform. You don't say!

As the Huffington Post and others first noted last July, Hudson's annual financial disclosures show that he owns a sizable chunk of Campaign Solutions, Inc., a Republican consulting firm that worked this election cycle for John Boehner, Michele Bachmann, John McCain, and a whole host of other GOP candidates who've placed the purported unconstitutionality of health care reform at the center of their political platforms. Since 2003, according to the disclosures, Hudson has earned between $32,000 and $108,000 in dividends from his shares in the firm (federal rules only require judges to report ranges of income).


Campaign Solutions was instrumental in the launching of Sarah Palin's PAC (though Palin has since split with the firm), and Ken Cuccinelli, the Virginia attorney general who filed the lawsuit that Hudson ruled in favor of today, paid Campaign Solutions $9,000 for services rendered in 2009 and 2010.

Anyway, if you're curious why Hudson, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush, ruled that health care reform's individual coverage mandate violates the constitution, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he as a major shareholder in a political messaging firm that gets paid to argue that health care reform's individual mandate is unconstitutional. It's really just that he's a Republican.

http://gawker.com/5713041/judge-who-...onsulting-firm

[sandie]

The other two judges that ruled it constitutional were appointed by Bill Clinton.

And if this is true and meant a thing, I'm sure the DOJ would have been all over it.

The left just can't handle defeat.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by sandie

The other two judges that ruled it constitutional were appointed by Bill Clinton.

And if this is true and meant a thing, I'm sure the DOJ would have been all over it.

The left just can't handle defeat.

What do you mean if "this is true"? Did you miss the part of the article where it linked to his annual financial disclosures? lol Go on back to the article, read it a little more, actually read his financial disclosures.

That is a clear conflict of interest for this judge.

Either way, it is not a defeat. It will go to the Supreme Court, and they will rule it constitutional, just like Federal judges that do not own parts of companies campaigning against the HCR have done.

[sandie]

Originally Posted by Twisp

What do you mean if "this is true"? Did you miss the part of the article where it linked to his annual financial disclosures? lol Go on back to the article, read it a little more, actually read his financial disclosures.

That is a clear conflict of interest for this judge.

Either way, it is not a defeat. It will go to the Supreme Court, and they will rule it constitutional, just like Federal judges that do not own parts of companies campaigning against the HCR have done.

I read the thing....I'll reserve judgement, if you don't mind. I've read other things that have proven false too.

If it was/is a clear conflict the DOJ would have done something about that, although this DOJ is pretty incompetent....

Naturally it will go to the SC and it all hangs on Kennedy.
This is a disaster for the American people if the SC rules in Obama's favor.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by sandie

I read the thing....I'll reserve judgement, if you don't mind. I've read other things that have proven false too.

If it was/is a clear conflict the DOJ would have done something about that, although this DOJ is pretty incompetent....

Naturally it will go to the SC and it all hangs on Kennedy.
This is a disaster for the American people if the SC rules in Obama's favor.

I bet you are "reserving judgment" on President Obama's birth certificate also, aren't you? lol.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Twisp

LOL

I guess we know why Hudson ruled it unconstitutional when two other Federal judges have already upheld the law's constitutionality.

Judge Who Ruled Health Care Reform Unconstitutional Owns Piece of GOP Consulting Firm

Henry E. Hudson, the federal judge in Virginia who just ruled health care reform unconstitutional, owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform. You don't say!

As the Huffington Post and others first noted last July, Hudson's annual financial disclosures show that he owns a sizable chunk of Campaign Solutions, Inc., a Republican consulting firm that worked this election cycle for John Boehner, Michele Bachmann, John McCain, and a whole host of other GOP candidates who've placed the purported unconstitutionality of health care reform at the center of their political platforms. Since 2003, according to the disclosures, Hudson has earned between $32,000 and $108,000 in dividends from his shares in the firm (federal rules only require judges to report ranges of income).


Campaign Solutions was instrumental in the launching of Sarah Palin's PAC (though Palin has since split with the firm), and Ken Cuccinelli, the Virginia attorney general who filed the lawsuit that Hudson ruled in favor of today, paid Campaign Solutions $9,000 for services rendered in 2009 and 2010.

Anyway, if you're curious why Hudson, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush, ruled that health care reform's individual coverage mandate violates the constitution, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he as a major shareholder in a political messaging firm that gets paid to argue that health care reform's individual mandate is unconstitutional. It's really just that he's a Republican.

http://gawker.com/5713041/judge-who-...onsulting-firm

If there is ANY truth to this at all, the proper thing for him to have done would have been to pass this case off to another judge.

This is absolutely terrible!