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

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Maybe they can throw out the requirements for buying car insurance too?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

seat-belts are slavery, donchano.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

DON'T TREAD ON MY CAR!!!!!

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I, for one, welcome our ever-present Petro-Chemical Overlords.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

right. but hey, question...if the feds over-rule this, does that then mean that a state will be prohibited from trying to enforce a similar law? because i can soooooo see some states trying to enforce this on their own :X

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Probably not, because the arguments for the mandate are based in Congressional powers that don't actually apply in this case. The states are free to mandate in this instance, as they do in Massachusetts with no Constitutional issue.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

yay! somebody responds :D thank you; very good to know

[aannnndy.livejournal.com]

In New Hampshire car insurance is not required and seat belts are also not required.

I love my state! :)

[aannnndy.livejournal.com]

Also, in New Hampshire it used to be people 12 and older did not have to wear a seat belt. They unfortunately raised the seat belt age to 18, though.

That was one thing I looked forward to as a kid growing up in NH. I could not wait to turn 12 so I would not have to wear my seat belt!

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

That's funny, so did I... I used to think that meant I would be grown up, lol.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

There's no requirement.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

There is no federal requirement to throw out.