Magox Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that the health care reform law’s requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance is unconstitutional, a striking blow to the legislation that increases the odds that the Supreme Court will have to review the law. The suit was brought by 26 states — nearly all led by Republican governors and attorneys general. The Department of Justice is expected to appeal. The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61218.html#ixzz1Uq8ofI3b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz1Uq8ofI3b Tick tock, tick tock................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Good news. Still, the Constitution means nothing to the left. Always nervous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Doesn't matter until the Supremes get to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Another defeat for Obama/Romney care! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Doesn't matter until the Supremes get to it. Kind of sketchy when its infested with leftist liberals. But 26 states aren't wrong. Not sure how that can be ignored even by the most mushy brained judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 12, 2011 Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 Kind of sketchy when its infested with leftist liberals. But 26 states aren't wrong. Not sure how that can be ignored even by the most mushy brained judges. There are more right leaning supreme court judges than left leaning ones. Unless I misunderstood you, what the hell are you talking about??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) There are more right leaning supreme court judges than left leaning ones. Unless I misunderstood you, what the hell are you talking about??? Yep, more right-leaning judges. And they don't want to be the ones to set a (bad) precedent by saying that the government forcing people to buy something (and in this case, a private product, which is even worse) is right and/or Constitutional. Edited August 13, 2011 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) Kind of sketchy when its infested with leftist liberals. But 26 states aren't wrong. Not sure how that can be ignored even by the most mushy brained judges. There are more right leaning supreme court judges than left leaning ones. Unless I misunderstood you, what the hell are you talking about??? Yeah, doesn't make sense to me either. On the right, you have Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. On the left, you have Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. And then there's Kennedy who, I think, would vote with Roberts et al. on this issue. Hell, you might even get one of the justices on the left to vote with Roberts and company. Edited August 12, 2011 by LeviF91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Yeah, doesn't make sense to me either. On the right, you have Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. On the left, you have Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. And then there's Kennedy who, I think, would vote with Roberts et al. on this issue. Hell, you might even get one of the justices on the left to vote with Roberts and company. I'm betting at least one does. And that Kagan is asked to recuse herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) I'm betting at least one does. And that Kagan is asked to recuse herself. That's the thing: no matter who asks her, she doesn't need to recuse herself. We've seen SC justices hear cases that they should have recused themselves from before. Edited August 13, 2011 by LeviF91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 That's the thing: no matter who asks her, she doesn't need to recuse herself. We've seen SC justices hear cases that they should have recused themselves from before. I should have clarified that I meant there will be a hue and cry for her to recuse herself. But I agree that she probably won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 It should be noted that the position of the administration - and I believe the courts as well - is that if this provision is struck down, it doesn't affect any other provision of the bill. So instead of not buying health insurance, paying the cheaper federal fine, and picking up health insurance as-needed because the pre-existing condition limitation will be illegal, you can instead not buy health insurance and have absolutely no repercussions for it. Striking down only this provision of the law makes it an even stupider law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 It should be noted that the position of the administration - and I believe the courts as well - is that if this provision is struck down, it doesn't affect any other provision of the bill. So instead of not buying health insurance, paying the cheaper federal fine, and picking up health insurance as-needed because the pre-existing condition limitation will be illegal, you can instead not buy health insurance and have absolutely no repercussions for it. Striking down only this provision of the law makes it an even stupider law. Wait, now they're saying that the mandates doesn't affect any other provision? Before they said it was central to the law working. Forget about AMC, Barry has gone full retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts