The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: the court says no! unconstitutional!

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    3,928

    Default the court says no! unconstitutional!

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/...rhaul_virginia

    another set back for the half-muslim apologist.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Jason Glavich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    woodbridge,VA
    Posts
    1,943

    Default

    You beat me to it. Pretty gutsy for the judge after 2 others said it was ok.
    My Father,My Friend,My teacher,and now My Angel~ 04/21/1956-03/21/2011 You will always be missed. I hope to learn half of the stuff you knew.

    ~Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted~

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Georgetown, MA
    Posts
    926

    Default

    Hudson's opinion contradicts other court rulings finding the mandate constitutionally permissible.




    "An individual's personal decision to purchase -- or decline purchase -- (of) health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach" of the U.S. Constitution," Hudson wrote. "No specifically constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance."




    That premise is the basis of the Mass "Romney Care" system. Everyone is required to buy insurance. Time will tell how long that will last.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,845

    Default

    There is a vast difference between the MA law and Federal law. Specifically, they are governed by two different bodies of law.

    I don't think that the other two findings have been specifically on the point of issue of this case. However, basically the judge said, "Here's what I think but you'll get a final ruling from the Supreme Court."

    Way to early to count chickens yet.

    Eric

  5. #5
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    There is a vast difference between the MA law and Federal law. Specifically, they are governed by two different bodies of law.

    I don't think that the other two findings have been specifically on the point of issue of this case. However, basically the judge said, "Here's what I think but you'll get a final ruling from the Supreme Court."

    Way to early to count chickens yet.

    Eric


    But, the judge determined that the mandate was severable and could be severed without taking out other important provisions...



    http://www.scribd.com/doc/45213239/C...Sibelius-et-al

    I can't copy from the link, but start reading on page 38 ending on page 41. A key statement:

    "Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, we try to limit the solution to the problem severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact".
    "The court will sever Section 1501 from the balance of the ACA and deny Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief."

    This is a loss for the right, since they hoped that Hudson would gut much of the rest of the law with the mandate. If this stands, expect the insurance industry to experience conniption fits.
    Last edited by Buzz; 12-13-2010 at 01:25 PM.
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  6. #6
    Senior Member BrianW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Athol, North Idaho
    Posts
    885

    Default

    I would hope that this gets to SCOTUS promptly and that the "Constitutional scholar" himself or surrogate would try to use his 2001 arguement;
    "that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

    I also disagree that this ruling is "a loss for the right" as Buzz states. Without the "mandate" to hold it all together, I see the plan unraveling like the judge has taken a sword to the Gordin Knot.
    "It's not that government is inherently stupid, although that's a debatable question."
    Rand Paul CPAC speech 2011

    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791
    ________________________________________
    Proud partner of (HR) WR SR Brian's 44Magnum Monster
    co-owned by HR Rianne's 2nd Chance Hurricane Rebel

  7. #7
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LV/CenTex/Idaho
    Posts
    12,407

    Default

    I just think its amusing that the judges ruling brings out all the internet constitutional law scholars to argue what will be ultimately decided by the SCOTUS when all is said and done....all the VA ruling did was give the opponents of the health care bill some legal precedent to stand on while they prepare a case for the highest court
    All my Exes live in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

  8. #8
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BonMallari View Post
    ....all the VA ruling did was give the opponents of the health care bill some legal precedent to stand on while they prepare a case for the highest court
    I'm no legal scholar, don't play one on the internet, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. So, I'm not too sure about that...
    Last edited by Buzz; 12-13-2010 at 02:48 PM.
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  9. #9
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LV/CenTex/Idaho
    Posts
    12,407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    I'm no legal scholar, don't play one on the internet, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. So, I'm not too sure about that...

    Good response...
    All my Exes live in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

  10. #10
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    I'm with Buzz. I don't know......furthermore, I DON'T CARE.
    There are bigger fish to fry right now. Since the implementation of the HC bill did very little, I suspect any potential repeal would do even "little-er".
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •