Appeals court upholds Obama health care law, Reagan appointee writes court's opinion

mikita's helmet

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
7,876
Liked Posts:
1,107
Location:
Anacortes, WA via Glenview, IL
A conservative-leaning panel of federal appellate judges on Tuesday upheld President Barack Obama's health care law as constitutional, helping set up a Supreme Court fight.



A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a split opinion upholding the lower court's ruling that found Congress did not overstep its authority in requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes, beginning in 2014. The requirement is the most controversial requirement of Obama's signature domestic legislative achievement and the focus of conflicting opinions from judges across the country. The Supreme Court is expected to decide soon, perhaps within days, whether to accept appeals from some of those earlier rulings.



The suit in Washington was brought by the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson. It claimed that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional because it forces Americans to buy a product for the rest of their lives and that it violates the religious freedom of those who choose not to have insurance because they rely on God to protect them from harm. But the court ruled that Congress had the power to pass the requirement to ensure that all Americans can have health care coverage, even if it infringes on individual liberty.



"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems," Judge Laurence Silberman, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan wrote in the court's opinion. Silberman was joined by Judge Harry Edwards, a Carter appointee.



Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a former top aide to President George W. Bush who appointed him to the bench, disagreed with the conclusion without taking a position on the merits of the law. He wrote a lengthy opinion arguing the court doesn't have jurisdiction to review the health care mandate until after it takes effect in 2014.



The federal appeals court in Cincinnati also upheld the law. The federal appeals court in Atlanta struck down the core requirement that Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty, while upholding the rest of the law.



And like Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion, an appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled it was premature to decide the law's constitutionality.





http://www.businessw...s/D9QSM1S01.htm
 

winos5

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Oct 19, 2013
Posts:
7,956
Liked Posts:
829
Location:
Wish You Were Here
Do you think Nancy Pelosi has read it yet, you know to find out what is in it?
 

IceHogsFan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,024
Liked Posts:
0
The sooner the better on the SC taking up this case.



God help us all if this nightmare is allowed to happen.
 

mikita's helmet

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
7,876
Liked Posts:
1,107
Location:
Anacortes, WA via Glenview, IL
The sooner the better on the SC taking up this case.



God help us all if this nightmare is allowed to happen.



Judge Laurence Silberman, who wrote the opinion, is a friend of Justice Thomas, with a similar judical philosophy.
 

IceHogsFan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,024
Liked Posts:
0
Even if the SC upholds the constitutionality of that particular part of the bill, there is much hope that the next Congress and POTUS can dismantle this piece of garbage piece by piece. There is also the option that many of the benefits outlined become unfunded like increasing taxpayer subsidized premiums up to 400% of the poverty level or even the exchanges themselves. For those that want a single payer system, this bill is going to quickly get us there. If you don't want then then you need to be afraid, be very afraid. Become educated, read up on the bill, listen to the medical fields and the impact this will have and is already having.
 

IceHogsFan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,024
Liked Posts:
0
Supreme Court to meet on health care law challenges



The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to meet privately today to decide whether to review lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the national health care law. The most difficult question is whether the federal government can require citizens to buy insurance, a dispute that centers on the power of Congress to regulate commerce, experts say.
 

mikita's helmet

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
7,876
Liked Posts:
1,107
Location:
Anacortes, WA via Glenview, IL
Supreme Court to meet on health care law challenges



The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to meet privately today to decide whether to review lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the national health care law. The most difficult question is whether the federal government can require citizens to buy insurance, a dispute that centers on the power of Congress to regulate commerce, experts say.



There's a split among circuits. That's usually when the SCT steps in.



DC & 6th circuits saying that the health care legislation is constitutional.



The 11th Circuit saying that (some of) it's unconstitutional.



The 4th Circuit refused to decide, saying until the law goes into effect, they can't decide (not ripe for review).



If the High Court hears the case, they'll probably get to the merits (though they could - not likely - send it back as the 4th circuit did and wait till the law goes into effect),
 

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL
Don't be fooled by the headline. The point of the story is to indicate that there have been astronomical increases in insurance costs since about 2003. So don't go blaming this one on Obama! Their solution may not be the best one or most favored by some of our small business owning posters, but someone had to do something.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-study-shows-health-insurance-premium-spikes-in-every-state/2011/11/16/gIQAhBl7SN_story.html



New study shows health insurance premium spikes in every state



...

Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance have risen faster than incomes in every state in the nation, according to a report released Thursday.

...

The District of Columbia had the highest annual total premiums, including both the employer’s and the worker’s share. In 2010, they averaged $5,644 for a single policy and $15,206 for a family version — a rise of 51 percent and 41 percent, respectively, since 2003.

...
 

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL

Are you kidding me? That whole thing is a scare tactic that this will allow 'the government' to come into your house and sit at your table and watch/govern how you live you life. What a fucking joke. Put the tin foil caps away folks, big brother simply isn't that big.

I don't understand why conservatives get their panties in a bunch over the government trying to save you from yourself by outlawing harmful things like illegal drugs, smoking, not wearing seat belts, speeding, etc... Especially when you all love to preach your rules for morality. Its okay to give myself and anyone close to me lung cancer, but you better not use the F word or my mythical god will smite you.
 

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL
Uh-oh. Looks like I might be bullying again. I better watch it so I don't hurt people's feelings...
 

winos5

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Oct 19, 2013
Posts:
7,956
Liked Posts:
829
Location:
Wish You Were Here
Uh-oh. Looks like I might be bullying again. I better watch it so I don't hurt people's feelings...

Feel guilty already?



I'll assume the god thing and projecting morals on others is more of blanket statement and not aimed at anyone in particular.



The faster this goes before the Supreme Court the better off we all are, either outcome.





PS: You guys are getting lazy, that was posted for a day and a half before I got an irrate liberal response to it.
 

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL
LOL nice. Lazy...good one.

That was a rant at 'conservatives' in general. Did you want it to be directed at you? Haha
 

winos5

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Oct 19, 2013
Posts:
7,956
Liked Posts:
829
Location:
Wish You Were Here
What does everyone think about Kagan and Thomas recusing themselves. I doubt either one will. They can't be forced to and for such a landmark decision I think I want all 9 justices considering it.
 

Tater

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
13,392
Liked Posts:
5,207
What does everyone think about Kagan and Thomas recusing themselves. I doubt either one will. They can't be forced to and for such a landmark decision I think I want all 9 justices considering it.



I think they should both step away actually. Doubtful it would happen but they both have baggage in this one.
 

MassHavoc

Moderator
Staff member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
17,853
Liked Posts:
2,553
I'm not familiar with their issues, why are they recusing?
 

Top