Federal judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional- Yes!

That was expected. It'll be appealed up to the Supreme Ct.

Remember, Brother Barry is illegally sitting as President. All of this is coming full circle. He'll be out BEFORE 2012.

Oh Barry wrote:

This is like going through a dirty, bitter, ugly divorce that never should have gotten to that point to begin with.

I can’t believe we’ve gotten ourselves into a situation where we even have to have the courts rule on the Constitutionality of a mandate forcing citizens to purchase something simply for existing. Everyone with an iota of rationality knows/knew it is/was a twisted, manipulative attempt at over-reach.

This kind of nightmare scenario is what Rod Serling, tried to warn us about back in the day.

You do realize that this really means nothing right and this was the expected outcome for this low level court right?

It will move on up the chain and will be eventually passed.

Weather you like Obama's plan or not we have serious issues in our healthcare system that need to be fixed.

He's black. That's why it was denied. Enough said. /EOT

Wrong again UncleB, he's half white, but that's besides the point.

Expected. Guy is a lifelong conservative, politically active before (and since) becoming a judge. Other courts have ruled in favor of the law. It will work its way up, and most people think likely be passed (but of course impossible to be certain).

The best way to get around forcing people to buy health insurance is having state run healthcare and funding it through taxes.

There are 28 other states attorney generals that are fighting this. In any event it will be 5-4 against when it reaches the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy will cast the swing vote and Barry loses.

The Real UncleB wrote:

He's black. That's why it was denied. Enough said. /EOT

As was announced, the real uncle Jeff bitch, that cross-dressing, snot sucking asian whore, reduced it all to racism. Had nothing to do with the fact that people don't want his brand of politics. News at 11 on the ultra-predictable propaganda loudspeaker, Jeff, the real, cross-dressing, ABD, snot-sucking asian bitch.

Items such as tort reform and allowing insurance carriers to compete across state lines were never allowed to reach a floor debate.

Or they can just modify the bill. Everyones taxes go up by 800 bucks (or whatever the number is) and you get a tax credit for the first x amount of money you spend on health insurance.It is sad that we are spending time on crap like this instead of fixing out health care system.

X-Runner wrote:

The best way to get around forcing people to buy health insurance is having state run healthcare and funding it through taxes.

Oh Barry wrote:

I can’t believe we’ve gotten ourselves into a situation where we even have to have the courts rule on the Constitutionality of a mandate forcing citizens to purchase something simply for existing.

You mean, like, taxes? Which are *already* used to pay the healthcare for people who can't afford it?

Sloppy, arrogant legislation will be redone in a way that is constitutional.

Such as waste of taxpayer dollars to have unconsitutional legislation written by lobbyists, and read by courts.

Congress should be doing the writing and reading before they pass these bills.

It's very simple to make this constitutional. The fact they didn't is just being caught being lazy.

It certainly won't be redone now. It barely got passed the first time.

I don't think the individual mandate is going to survive. The Justice Department has already conceded that they cannot regulate inactivity. Their argument is that they are not actually forcing you to do something, because you will undoubtedly participate in the healthcare market at some point. They say this is a regulation on HOW you participate in this market, because it is inconceivable that you won't. Essentially, it's a "healthcare is different" argument ("give us this one statute and we promise we won't try to do something like this again.")

It's a legit argument, but I think it will fail for a few reasons. First, the Supreme Court is generally more formalist than functionalist. Second, there's a legitimate slippery slope here. I don't believe healthcare really is a unique market in the way that DOJ is arguing. Finally, it's just so easy to draw a bright line between the regulation of activity and inactivity. Judges, especially the Supreme Court, like easily administerable tests.

I think "it," will be different, but we will always have "it."

Repeal, even if achieved, will just be a different version.

Look at the tax bill that Obama endorsed. It's opposed by the left and the right. Everyone who voted in November for less government is just finding that the most they are getting is different government, no net reduction.

The opposition to government run healthcare is in for a disappointment. It's a quick rewrite.

I am opposed to "it," but I am realistic about the political climate. Tens of millions of people are dependent on the government for their lifestyle and the elected officials who pander to them will keep those votes.

My prediction: ruled unconstitutional, 5-4, driving the left INSANE. 10-20 years from now, the next time the left is in office they pass universal healthcare (i.e. Medicare for everyone) under the tax and spend clause.

Swofford11,

First, the word is whether. Second, it will never make it to the Supreme Court. A moron could see that this was unconstitutional. Of course, Elena Kagan helped with this fiasco and should recuse herself but probably won't.

28 conservative state attorney generals want to fight it. A conservative federal judge wants to fight it. Does this surprise anyone? The party of "No" has said "No" to 100% of proposals, laws, etc. forwarded by the democrats. Will the revised Medicare plan survive a Supreme Ct. challenge? It will probably depend more on the makeup of the Court than would is rational and in compliance with the Constitution. If a changeover (death or resignation) occurs in the Court during the next couple years, the replacement will likely be a liberal learning judge (or the court will not be filled because of obstruction from the conservatives), so the vote will be 5-4 or 4-4 or 4-5. I find it sad that our Judicial body is at the whim of the the politics of the other two bodies, when the Judicial is supposed to be independent. That in itself is basically in direct controvention of the intention of the constitution. I would ask any Conservative Party of No person what is their plan to solve the medical mess that is a runaway train.

A Chick View wrote:

Swofford11,

First, the word is whether. Second, it will never make it to the Supreme Court. A moron could see that this was unconstitutional. Of course, Elena Kagan helped with this fiasco and should recuse herself but probably won't.

Thank you for the spell check...

It will more than make it...to much money and political power is tied up in it on both sides.