Federal judge rules against Obama care, conservatives get giddy

[telemann.livejournal.com]

A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida.

Source: AP.

Conservatives and Libertarians on Live journal have been very excited since this news broke earlier this afternoon, but apparently they've overlooked previous rulings against this lawsuits (and quite a few of the lawsuits have been dismissed without comment). It turns out the judge that ruled, Henry E. Hudson, is a Bush II appointee. The next level is to the 4th circuit, one of the most conservative circuits in the country. As Bill Dupray has observed: "If you opposed Obamacare and got to choose the judge and the Circuit in which to have the case heard, you could do a lot worse than the Virginia federal courts. But of course, Ken Cuccinelli [Virginia Attorney General - R ] already knew that." Since we all know this will be decided by the Supremal Court (the Roberts court is the most conservative since the 1930s), and more than likely by a single vote, that made me wonder, if a conservative vacancy occurred for whatever reasons (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or tie-breaker Kennedy), do you think President Obama would be required to nominate another conservative? In the last two nominations, there was a feeling from right wingers that the President would obligated to maintain an ideological balance on the court, and could expect a tremendous fight during a confirmation process if he were to nominate anyone that they didn't approve. Of course, I couldn't disagree more. The President can nominate ANYONE he wants, and expect Senate confirmation, baring any major issues. But considering how much President Obama wants to compromise with the Republican party, I'd be willing to bet he'd pick another conservative.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Interesting how selectively the term "activist" judge is applied, innit?

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Republicans never apply it to the 'activist' justices who shut down the Florida recount in 2000.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Why would it be used to describe non-activist judges.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Only the way the left sees it.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Once again, "activist" != "ruling I don't agree with".

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Not only is Hudson a Bush II appointee, but he owns money in a

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a href+>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Not only is Hudson a Bush II appointee, but he owns money in a <a href+="http://gawker.com/5713041/judge-who-ruled-health-care-reform-unconstitutional-owns-piece-of-gop-consulting-firm">conservative political consulting firm.</a>

http://gawker.com/5713041/judge-who-ruled-health-care-reform-unconstitutional-owns-piece-of-gop-consulting-firm

[dwer.livejournal.com]

bah.

linky. (http://gawker.com/5713041/judge-who-ruled-health-care-reform-unconstitutional-owns-piece-of-gop-consulting-firm)

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

conservatives get giddy

No, this will be the fact that now they all getting old doctors are prescribing blood pressure tablets, This makes the old folks a bit dizzy, great mix when added to the brittle bones the oldies have naturaly :)

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

are you implying 'conservatives' are mostly made up of our senior citizen population?? could be...

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

I say screw the pundits who say Obama should nominate a conservative to replace any con that leaves the bench, and there will be pundits who say that. Bush would have never gone along with that in a similar circumstance (Can you imagine Bush II naming a hardcore liberal to replace Ginsberg or Stevens? Can you imagine anyone even suggesting he should?)

The President's job is to nominate someone who he/she feels can do the job and shares his/her goals for the judiciary, nowhere in the rules does it say that the President is bound by the ideological slant of the justice's predecessor.

Look at who Bush I got to replace Thurgood Marshall, one of the greatest justices in modern history. He didn't go to the candidates and select a liberal to match Marshall's record, he didn't choose a judge known for his stalwart support of civil rights and individual freedoms, he chose Clarence Thomas one of the most conservative (if not the most conservative) justices in recent memory. He used the opportunity afforded by Marshall's exit from the bench to nominate one of the most dangerous, anti-freedom, justices ever elevated to the Supreme Court.

Similarly, if a conservative seat opens up, Obama should use that opportunity to correct the balance back towards the American people and away from the dangerous conservative agenda currently served by the Supreme Court (not that any conservative seats will open up, Scalia is the oldest conservative justice and he seems to be relatively healthy and can certainly wait out the clock hoping for a Republican President before he retires. Even Kennedy, the idiot who gives the conservative wing most of their victories, seems spry enough and will likely last even through a second Obama term and will probably retire/die just in time to be replaced with an even more conservative justice by a Republican President).

I have a hard time getting worked up about this decision though. A couple other, more reasonable, justices have sided with Obama on this one. This issue was always destined to be decided by the Supreme Court (where the 4 corporate owned justices will vote against healthcare reform, the 4 pro-common sense justices will vote for it and Kennedy will as always be the asshole who turns the whole thing to the corporate owned side). This inevitable decision by the Supremes to destroy healthcare reform is the real issue, until that happens it's all academic.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I wonder how long it will take to get to SCOTUS? Maybe 2 years?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

He used the opportunity afforded by Marshall's exit from the bench to nominate one of the most dangerous, anti-freedom, justices ever elevated to the Supreme Court.

I laughed my ass off at this. Thank you so much for saying one of the funniest things in this community.

Dear god, man.

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

Don't all get giddy at once guys.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

really? how many conservatives do we have in this forum?? isn't it like "0?"

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Oh noes.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

I posted on this too, but I see you beat me to it, so I'll take it down and just paste in the bulk of what I'd posted here:

The important thing about the individual mandate, to my mind, is that at worst this is a tax but at best, it's something far less intrusive. If it's a tax, it's hard to argue that the government lacks the authority to impose it.

Insofar as it isn't a tax, because it's requiring us to buy a service on the free market rather than fund a government program, conservatives should, IMO, think long and hard about opposing it. There's a good reason that this kind of plan was once the darling of conservatives, it leaves the door wide open for market forces. The government could have presumably have gone a far more radical route, just make medicare wide open or effectively wide open. In that case, we could have had real discussions about socialism, but what we probably couldn't have had is an objection based on concerns about the constitutionality of the plan. We'd have funded it with taxes and it's hard to see what case could be made to block it. Obama has opened up the door to a constitutional challenge only because he's too moderate, not because he's too liberal or the plan is too intrusive, but only because the plan isn't obtrusive enough. But what conservatives should know, should they manage to win this case, is they've forced the hands of proponents of health care reform. The only workable solution to the cost problem, should a ruling this pass muster, would then have to be one in which the government is involved far more directly so that the funding for the program will pass muster as a tax.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

oOoo, i like your thoughts here. sounds like it best if this thing does pass because then I can go back to selling insurance for a while (good $$).

[aannnndy.livejournal.com]

I am happy this ruling was made. Requiring people to purchase something they don't want is unconstitutional.

I am against this whole government insurance plan as it screws many people over. The people who voted in favor of government insurance also voted to cut Medicare. Do you know who gets Medicare? The elderly and the disabled. So basically the people who actually need health care the most will be the ones most screwed over by this.

I also think that health insurance is what caused health costs to sky rocket. If most people paid for their PCP out of pocket it would be cheaper. Right now a visit to a PCP can be around $200! If people, instead of insurance companies and the government, paid for their own health care then the prices would have to go down to remain competitive and keep patients.

[ironhawke.livejournal.com]

On your last comment. In premise I agree with you, I'd love to see the health insurance ogliarchies get taken down a few dozen notches. However, let me ask you this: Assuming a major overhaul of the system that allows people people to pay for their own health care, it assumes that it is a system that can be afforded. The drop in costs won't be overnight, and we'd be lucky to see anything within 5-10 years. So how are we going to deal with prohibitively high costs? Personally I just saw my orthopedic doctor about a shoulder injury, the cost? $508 for ONE visit. How are we going to afford our health care until prices drop? How can we afford a visit to a PCP for $200 when many of us can't even afford to pay our bills?

You're absolutely right on one point though. My chiropractor is cheap as long as you're paying in cash. We can pay $75 a month for my entire family (5 of us) as long as we pay at the beginning of the month, and pay in cash. He does this because it's simple, and he doesn't have to deal with the insurance companies. If more doctors took this route I think we'd see a huge improvement in our health care costs. Unfortunately, even the doctors don't have an incentive to do so. The same chiro, giving me the same treatment, will charge my insurance $250 per visit, the same visit in which I paid $30 in cash. It's silly, but its how things are right now.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Conservatives and Libertarians on Live journal have been very excited since this news broke earlier this afternoon, but apparently they've overlooked previous rulings against this lawsuits (and quite a few of the lawsuits have been dismissed without comment).

No, we haven't. We've noticed from the beginning that this was likely getting to the Supreme Court, and expected some lower court conflictions. Of course we're happy that there's a judge who actually, you know, read the Constitution.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm waiting for the day Conservatives realize the MI Complex can't be justified on any consistent constitutional grounds and the "well-regulated" part of the Second Amendment means just as much as the "right to keep and bear arms bit." I'd wait for them to cry about the 8th Amendment WRT to things we considered war crimes at the post-WWII war crimes trials but I'd shrivel up and die before that ever happened.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Conservatives and Libertarians on Live journal have been very excited since this news broke earlier this afternoon, but apparently they've overlooked previous rulings against this lawsuits

[citation needed]

Every post I can recall notes that it will end up in SCOTUS.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

"citation needed" doesn't mean the same things as "I'm sceptical of your claim". We don't really need citations for off the cuff rhetorical comments.

He can nominate anyone he wants

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

The limiting factor will always be whether the Senate will confirm them.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

But considering how much President Obama wants to compromise with the Republican party, I'd be willing to bet he'd pick another conservative.

I disagree. He'd pick a toady, regardless of superficial labels.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_12/027064.php

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

I know I'm giddy!

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Aren't you always though?