Obamacare back in court again today

[Little-Acorn]

26 states sued to have the unconstitutional Obamacare "mandate" taken off their backs. Federal District Court judge Roger Vinson ruled the mandate was indeed unconstitutional, and then pointed out that the entire law had been deliberately written without a "severability clause" saying that even if one part were thrown out the rest could remain (Obama's favored insurance companies had insisted there be no such clause).

Since there was no such severability provision, Judge Vinson ruled that all of Obamacare was unconstitutional. He then announced he would delay enforcement of is ruling if the Obamanites quickly appealed. After delaying as long as possible, they did.

Today the case will be argued before a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

One more necessary step on the road to getting Obamacare relegated to the dust bin of history with the rest of the Democrats' socialistic agenda.

-------------------------------------------

http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2011/06/08/obama_administration_to_appeal_healthcare_ruling

Obama administration to appeal healthcare ruling

by Matthew Bigg
6/8/2011 | Reuters

ATLANTA (Reuters) - Lawyers for President Barack Obama will on Wednesday seek to stave off the biggest legal challenge yet to healthcare reform, his signature domestic policy achievement.

The administration will present oral arguments as it appeals a ruling by a Florida judge who declared the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, backing claims by 26 U.S. states that are seeking repeal.

A three-judge panel at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta will hear oral arguments by both sides. While a Virginia appeals court heard a similar case in May, this case is significant because of the number of states backing it.

No ruling is expected for months and legal experts expect an appeal to the Supreme Court, regardless of which side wins.

"Opponents of reform claim that the law's individual responsibility provision exceeds Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes 'inactivity.' They are wrong," the White House said on its blog on Tuesday.

Florida District Judge Roger Vinson ruled in January the entire law "must be declared void" because its requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional, but put the ruling on hold pending appeal.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[Little-Acorn]

It's not looking too good for the Obamanites after yesterday's arguments in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Even the Clinton-appointed judges were asking the govt lawyers whether there would be any limits to Congressional power if they were allowed to force people to buy things; and whether there had ever been any law in the nations history that did so, that was ever upheld in court. Govt lawyers were unable to answer, knowing better than to cite silly non-sequitors about car insurance or comparing Obamacare's mandates and penalties to voluntary programs that people or states could opt out of.

The Obamanites also pulled the long-awaited 180-degree turn about the program's penalties for non-participation. During the months leading up to Congress's voting on the Obamacare bill, they had stressed that the penalties were not taxes - they knew full well that Americsans would reject the program out of hand if it involved new taxes. They wrote the bill carefully to leave out any mention of "taxes", calling them either "fines" or "penalties" throughout the 2,000-page bill. The bill barely squeaked through Congress.

But yesterday, when the judges asked the Obamanites where Congress got the authority to put such huge, radical programs into place, and especially why they felt they could impose these penalties on Americans, they replied that they were not "penalties", but "taxes".

What the judges rule as a result of these arguments, of course, won't matter. The ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court no matter which side it favors. But this provides an interesting hint about how the Supreme Court vote might go, if even the relatively-law-ignoring Clinton appointees were uneasy about the Obamanites' attempts to impose a flagrantly socialistic programs on Americans who thought they were getting something else.

C-Span actually broadcast recorded audio from the arguments last night (anybody know if they aired it live?), and are making it available on their website. Sometimes it's there, sometimes it's "unavailable" - keep checking.

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Court-Hears-Case-on-Obama-Health-Care-Bill/10737422097-1/

[Little-Acorn]

As the 11th Circuit's Chief Judge said yesterday, the main issue is Obamacare's "mandate". The program REQUIRES all Americans, with a few very limited exceptions, to sign up and buy their approved insurance; and it imposes penalties on those who don't. No Federal law has ever done this before, and many people (including all three of yesterday's judges) are questioning whether the government has any authority to force people to buy it.

Some are asking whether, if the Courts strike down the mandate, can the rest of the law still stand?

In fact, it almost doesn't matter. Socialist programs like this depend on forcing EVERYBODY to take part - the programs can never stand on their own if people have any choice on whether to participate. Their entire purpose is to take money away from people who don't need the program's services, and transfer it to people who do need it. Obviously, the former have little reason to take part, especially if the services can be bought elsewhere more competetively. Only people with high needs and low ability to provide, will want to be part of such a program... and if they are the only ones to join, the program will quickly collapse under its own weight. Forcing everybody to sign up, is absolutely mandatory.

So if the mandate is struck down by the Courts (ultimately the Supreme Court), and the rest of the program is "left to stand", it's just a matter of time before the whole thing collapses anyway. The insurance companies will be left holding the bag - having to pay out far more that the remaining participants can possible pay in - which is why th0ose companies insisted that no "severability clause" be included in the Obamacare program.

As District Court Judge Roger Vinson pointed out, if any part of Obamacare is found unconstitutional (as the mandate has been), the entire program must be thrown out. The people who would actually pay the bills - the insurance companies - knew it must be that way.

Yet the Obamanites still insist it doesn't.