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

[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 $$).