28 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
AP Photo/Harry Hamburg
Majority Leader Harry Reid listens as Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn, speaks during a Democratic health care rally on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 22, 2009.
Published Monday, Dec. 13, 2010 | 3:56 p.m.
Updated Monday, Dec. 13, 2010 | 3:56 p.m.
Sun Coverage
Nevada lawmakers weighed in on a federal judge's decision in Virginia that the sweeping health care reform law Congress passed earlier this year is unconstitutional, handing a political victory to Republicans and Tea Partiers who have long been been calling for its repeal.
Judge Henry E. Hudson, a Bush appointee to the federal bench in Richmond, ruled that the health care bill violates the Constitution’s commerce clause by attempting “to compel individuals to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce.”
Nevada’s Republicans praised the ruling for reiterating a point they say they’ve been trying to make since before the bill passed.
“From the time that the Democrats passed this health care bill, the individual mandate was unconstitutional,” said Sen. John Ensign, who raised a constitutional point of order against the bill when it was being debated on the Senate floor. “Even if the majority party in Washington, D.C., refuses to acknowledge its unprecedented reach of power ... American people remain protected by the United States Constitution and the courts in this land.”
Rep. Dean Heller said: "The health care bill was flawed from the very beginning and this court decision is a victory for the American public."
In Carson City, incoming Gov. Brian Sandoval praised the ruling and pledged to continue to back Nevada’s participation in efforts to overturn the law.
“I am hopeful that Florida court will use the Virginia decision as legal precedent in its deliberations,” he said.
Both Sandoval and Ensign said they want to see the U.S. Supreme Court rule on the issue; Heller said Congress shouldn’t wait for that, but should work to change the law to avoid “add[ing] to our national debt or hurt[ing] our struggling economy” in the meantime.
Democrats, on the other hand, have been trying to spin the court’s ruling as a distraction and legal loose cannon.
“Opponents of reform have tried everything to protect insurance companies and block common-sense protections for middle-class families in Nevada and across the nation. That fight is over. It’s time to move on,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who maneuvered the bill through the Senate on the back of 60 Democratic votes earlier this year. “Fourteen federal district judges have rejected lawsuits like this one, making this ruling an outlier.”
Hudson’s is not the first — or last — legal word on the subject.
The verdict comes just days before Nevada will bring its own suit, along with 20 other states, before a Florida court on the same question: challenging the constitutionality of a law that mandates citizens purchase a product, and fining them for failing to.
Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat, refused to join that suit. Las Vegas attorney Mark Hutchison agreed to represent the state without a fee, though outgoing Gov. Jim Gibbons solicited donations to help cover other costs.
Both cases are expected to eventually end up before the Supreme Court, which hasn’t struck down a federal law for violating the commerce clause since 2000, when in a 5-4 decision, it invalidated parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (the case of U.S. v. Morrison).
Earlier this year, similar challenges were brought before federal district court judges in Detroit and Lynchburg, Va. In both cases, the health care law’s constitutionality was upheld. A total of eight lawsuits against the law have been filed in various federal courts around the country.
For now, Hudson’s ruling isn’t expected to have a tangible effect on the distribution of health care — and not just because a long appeals process is all but guaranteed. The provision of the health care law that has been the key magnet for the challenge is the mandate to buy health insurance, but that doesn’t actually kick in until 2014.
What it will likely do, though, is embolden those calling for the ouster of the overhaul in the coming Congress.
The GOP, which takes over the majority in the House of Representatives in a few weeks, has made repeal of the health care law one of its top policy objectives.
Not every objection to the health care law is existential. Members of both parties have said elements of the health care bill like 1099 reporting requirements, which require medical providers to itemize every purchase in excess of $600, and Medicare compensation, which indexes reimbursements paid to doctors who serve Medicare patients to inflation, should be corrected to reduce costs to providers and keep the system humming along.
Some Democrats in the Senate tried to defuse one of those live wires earlier this month when they tried to pass an unfunded fix to the IRS’s 1099 requirement, but Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, its chief backer, wasn’t able to get a simple majority of senators to vote for it, much less anything filibuster-proof.
Republicans have since rebuffed Democrats’ attempts to rework a funded compromise (a fix to the requirement is expected to cost $19 billion), leaving Republicans a perfect hook with wide appeal upon which to hang a greater attempt at undoing the health care bill.
The health care overhaul bill was passed earlier this year on a party line vote in the Senate and a near-party line vote in the House (some Democrats split off to vote “no,” while not a single Republican voted for it).
Sun reporter Cy Ryan contributed to this report.
"The U.S. Justice Department and opponents of the health care law agree that Justice Kennedy will have the final word."
Fixed!
GOOD!!!
And that's all I have to say about that...
Judge Henry E. Hudson's ruling aptly suggests that there exists a treasonist ignorance commonly shared amongst elected officials supporting unconstitutional legislation against their sworn oath, which attempts to unconstitutionally punish "the people" of the United States.
: {
I wonder if in hindsight Obama wished he had focused on jobs instead of social engineering.
Why is it that most liberals believe in evolution yet constantly legislate for social engineering?
How sad for the US people. Other developed countries can afford:
National health care
8 week vacation
37 hr work weeks
free college education
a living wage
full pension funding.
BUT NOT THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!
Something is very wrong! The US has the largest number of rich people and the lowest tax rates on rich people. And the largest disparity of wealth Any coincidence?
Bob, please cite the countries you speak of.
@Bob635 - It's no coincidence at all, dude. If those tax cuts are extended I guess we can all sit back and let the richest 5% of Americans dump all their money into creating new jobs and jump starting the economy for the rest of us. Better find a comfortable chair...it's going to be a LOOOOOOOONG wait!
Bob,
I believe that allowing people to keep more of what they earn from a free market is called 'capitalism' or 'the American way'. The countries you speak of practice a form of socialism and they all have higher taxes and less freedom than America does. As dictated in the constitution, it's the US government's responsibility to protect the people but it's not the job of the government to directly provide for them. It's insane to me that people in this country are short sighted enough to give up more and more civil liberties for a temporary sense of security.
Also, more people need to take a look at the underlying causes of unhealthy Americans and the reasons for health costs being so high. Drug companies and medical suppliers in America charge significantly more for drugs and supplies than any other country in the world. They also use their money to influence public policy to benefit them. Americans also have some of the most unhealthy nutrition habits on the world. Including over indulgence of fast food, alcohol, and smoking. This leads to many more cases of disease. It's strange to me that the same people defending their rights to eat themselves into obesity, drink themselves into liver failure, and smoke their way into lung cancer, then want the 'rich' people to pay more taxes to afford their free healthcare. I think a bit more corporate and social responsibility would benefit the country much more than another hand out our country can't afford.
So all the silly republicans line up behind one corrupt judge who made a bad call in VA. What about all the other Fed Judges who are not corrupt and ruled in favor of Healthcare Reform.
What's VC stand for, Viet Cong?
So, it's okay when all the Liberals line up behind one corrupt and very communist judge in Calfornia who ruled in favor of the gay's same sex marriage when the PEOPLE voted against it? But that's okay right?
Moscow is calling.
. . . ruled that the health care bill violates the Constitution's commerce clause by attempting "to compel individuals to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce"
That may be true. But if so, where, in the Constitution, is the clause that compels me to involuntarily buy auto insurance?
Required auto insurance is a state law, not a federal law.
"Required auto insurance is a state law, not a federal law."
Also you do not have to drive if you do not want to buy auto insurance.
Sure, the feds can't force you to buy insurance, but they can give you a tax break if you are responsible and do have insurance, or are rich and self-insure.
Seems like it is just an issue of wording.
Either way, just another thing happening in Washington DC that directly affects my life in absolutely no way at all..
"It's time to move on," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Enough said...
Victor Charlie rants: "So all the silly republicans line up behind one corrupt judge who made a bad call in VA." "Corrupt Judge?"
Liberals so like to name call and demonize. They just can't help themselves...
I think it's incredibly hilarious that one judge in Virginia, who is actually in the pockets of those who want this national health care repealed, votes against one small portion of health care.
But what has not been revealed by Fox News and the incredibly clamorous right wing media is the fact that two other judges DID NOT vote against national health care reform.
The righties are DESPERATE for something that will beat this down.
And it's not going to happen. Finally, America has a law that guarantees that health care is affordable, readily available and considered an inalienable right (not privilege...right) FOR ALL!
It should be pointed out that this same right wing paranoia surfaced when Social Security, Medicare and other successful America programs first came into being.
One thing for certain is that the Republicans would absolutely LOVE for this to be presented before the U.S. Supreme Court. Why? Because they want this slanted in their favor with the ultra-conservative judges that reside there now.
But what's driving them nuts is the fact there is no need for this to go to the Supreme Court.
And even when it does end up going to the Supreme Court by a writ of certorari, they will have to take note of the overwhelming considerations of other courts that they are in favor of this new national health care reform. (HINT FOR THE RIGHTIES: National health care reform. NOT the stupid rightie, Fox News term "Obamacare." This is for all people. And I'm sure President Obama didn't sign this into law so his name would be on it. He wanted EVERYONE to own this monumental bill.)
Colin, I need to help you spell check.
.......President Obama didn't sign this into law so his name would be on it. He wanted EVERYONE to own this monumental swill.
This is a public service, no need to thank me.
I think it's incredibly hilarious that Liberals are attacking the judge in Virginia who ruled against ObamaCare.
Some Liberals think that once the ObamaCare lawsuits hit the Supreme Court, that the Court will
"take note of the overwhelming considerations of other courts that they are in favor of" ObamaCare.
Yea right, the Supreme Court will take a vote of the lower courts...
These greedy, heartless, low life republicans
will pay the price in 2012, for their
HEARTLESS GREED.
WHAT WOULD JESUS SAY ABOUT THESE GREEDY,
HEARTLESS REPUBLICANS?
I think that Judge Hudson does not really have a constitutional point as automobile insurance, is already mandated by every state of the U.S. and it is mandatory and people are fined routinely. Since state law has to be within federal law, both of which have to be constitutional, thus, in my opinion, if this judge has his way, then the automobile insurance laws will have to be ruled unconstitutional as well.
This article states that, "...challenging the constitutionality of a law that mandates citizens purchase a product, and fining them for failing to."
Now, again, each state has been imposing similar laws, especially mandatory car insurance and mandatory laws for parents to place children in car seats. Both the said laws require the consumers, the residents of a state to purchase a product, car insurance and a car seat, and be fined, if one doesn't purchase car insurance and a car seat. Thus, what is the difference?
The Auto insurance argument is phoney. I don't "have to" buy auto insurance if I don't own a car. Obamacare requires you to buy health insurance weather you need it or not.
Since you keep asking what Jesus would say in all of your comments on many posts, TEAMSTER, I would guess He would say, "YOUR TIME IS UP, TEAMSTER!"
It's amazing that all of the Christian Conservatives who have moved here from California are the most wonderful, angelic people on earth. But all of the demonic Liberals who ruined California and then moved because they couldn't stand California anymore came here to destroy Las Vegas.
Has anybody noticed that?
"Under historical interpretations of the Constitution, Congress can dictate the economic activity of citizens so long as that activity will have profound, large-scale effects on the national economy.
"
The big difference between auto insurance and health insurance as some want to compare is that auto insurance protects OTHERS from actions by you, health insurance protects you.
health insurance protects you PLUS all !
** Inaction cost, $9trillion over the next decade, ((Some of CBO analysis : While the costs of the financial bailouts and economic stimulus bills are staggering, they are only a fraction of the coming costs from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that each year Medicaid will expand by 7 percent, Medicare by 6 percent, and Social Security by 5 percent. These programs face a 75-year shortfall of $43 trillion--60 times greater than the gross cost of the $700 billion TARP financial bailout)).
Over the duration of healthcare debate, using the preliminary cost analysis of CBO, the reps opposed the public option stubbornly, but after the release of final score, they have been defiant on the referee.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that :
Inaction cost in relation to health care reform totals $9trillion over the next decade.
Reform will reduce the federal deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years and as much as $1 trillion during the following decade.
Hey Cloinfromvegas,take Obama care and old dirty harry and shove it I do no not want to pay for the losers to have a free health care package.So it was alright for creepy reid to cut medicare to seniors to supply health care to all the illegals among us . I do not think so.
Colin says that "It should be pointed out that this same right wing paranoia surfaced when Social Security, Medicare and other successful America programs first came into being."
Colin must have flunked history in school. Medicare was a legislative idea that began in the Eisenhower Administration (GOP) and the only reason is wasn't passed in 1962 was because it defeated by Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Johson (Democrat).
Colin just conveniently makes up facts as he goes along.
This Judge is a JOKE. He's been bought and paid for by Right wing whackos.
For the past 13 years, he has held an investment in a Republican political consulting firm, which pays him dividends every year.
Campaign Solutions Inc. gave him $5,000 to $15,000 in 2009, as it had in 2008, according to his latest financial- disclosure reports, which only specify ranges for the amounts. Those were especially good years for advisers to Republicans. In all, over the past seven years since he has been reporting, Hudson's dividends from the firm were $12,000 to $38,000.
If you can't win fair then by all means BRIBE everyone you can, that's how Bush won, that's why Cheney has a bribery indictment against him, heck its the republican way!!!
Everyone KNOWS this is a BOON to the ins. co.s-no way are they going to let this billion dollar baby get away!