Virginia judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/index.html

(CNN) -- A Virginia federal judge on Monday found a key part of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care reform law unconstitutional, setting the stage for a protracted legal struggle likely to wind up in the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson struck down the "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014. The Justice Department is expected to challenge the judge's findings in a federal appeals court.

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."

"Despite the laudable intentions of Congress in enacting a comprehensive and transformative health care regime, the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds," Hudson added. "Salutatory goals and creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers."

A federal judge in Virginia ruled in favor of the administration earlier this month over the purchase requirement issue, mirroring conclusions reached by a judge in Michigan back in October.

Virginia officials had argued that the Constitution's Commerce Clause does not give the government the authority to force Americans to purchase a commercial product -- like health insurance -- that they may not want or need. They equated such a requirement to a burdensome regulation of "inactivity."

Virginia is one of the few states in the country with a specific law saying residents cannot be forced to buy insurance.

"I am gratified we prevailed," said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a conservative Republican elected in 2009. "This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution."

Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, urged Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to request an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court.

"Ultimately, we must ensure that no American will be forced by the federal government to purchase health insurance they may not need, want, or be able to afford," Cantor said. "In this challenging environment, we must not burden our states, employers, and families with the costs and uncertainty created by this unconstitutional law, and we must take all steps to resolve this issue immediately."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters the decision by Hudson -- a 2002 George W. Bush appointee -- was not "a surprise to anybody."

"We disagree with the ruling," he said. Among other things, the provisions requiring everyone to buy insurance allow the government to "finally address the lingering discrimination" against individuals with pre-existing conditions, he said.

"When all the legal wrangling is said and done ... this is something that will be upheld," he predicted. "I think we have a good argument. I think the merits of the case are strong."

A Justice Department spokeswoman also expressed confidence the administration will eventually win the legal fight.

"We are disappointed in today's ruling but continue to believe -- as other federal courts in Virginia and Michigan have found -- that (the law) is constitutional," Tracy Schmaler said. "There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail."

Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March, after promoting Democratic-led health reform efforts for months after taking office. The law is widely considered to be the signature legislative accomplishment of the president's first two years in office.

Among other things, the measure was designed to help millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans receive adequate and affordable health care through a series of government-imposed mandates and subsidies. The federal government stated in court briefs that last year, 45 million Americans were without health insurance, roughly 15 percent of the country's population.

Critics have equated the measure to socialized medicine, fearing that a bloated government bureaucracy will result in higher taxes and diminished health care services. About two dozen challenges have been filed in federal courts nationwide.

On November 8, the Supreme Court rejected the first constitutional challenge to the health care reform effort, resisting a California conservative group's appeal. The justices refused to get involved at a relatively early stage of the legal process.

The high court rarely accepts cases before they have been thoroughly reviewed by lower courts.

Legal experts say they expect several of the larger issues in the health care debate to ultimately end up before the Supreme Court. A review from the high court may not happen, however, for at least a year or two.

The highest-profile lawsuit may come from Florida. State officials there have objected not only to the individual coverage mandate but also to a requirement forcing states to expand Medicaid. Florida's litigation is supported by 19 other states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North and South Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington.

Health care reform, a top Democratic priority since the Truman administration, passed the current Congress in a series of virtual party-line votes. Opponents derisively labeled the measure "Obamacare." Republican leaders, who captured the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, have vowed to overturn or severely trim the law.

"While this court's decision may set the initial judicial course of this case, it will certainly not be the final word," the 63-year-old Hudson wrote in October.

The case decided Monday is Virginia v. Sebelius (3:10-cv-00188).

I don't see the connection between "compulsory health insurance or get fined" as fitting "snugly into the 'general welfare' clause ".

  

It seems to me there's an individual mandate when it comes to another form of insurance - auto insurance. You are mandated to purchase auto insurance and you can go to jail if you don't. So... what's the difference?

if it were not so, then i am having a hard time imagining that Medicare will be found constitutional, as it is quite similarly situated, legally speaking.

I don't see it that way.
What I see is poorly crafted legislation in the case of the health care reform. Had there been an alternate source of insurance built in to the bill, such as a public affordable, basic health care option then I think it would have been constitutional. As it is, one will be forced to get insurance from a private insurer.
  

As it is, one will be forced to get insurance from a private insurer.

Health care is a privilege in the US?
Why, yes. It already is and always was. Just like driving an automobile.

Perhaps at least equally important to Judge Hudson's ruling are the limitations of that ruling ~ see the sentence I emphasized/bolded in the first update below ~ he did not "block implementation of the law" ~ it doesn't surprise me that at least one of the numerous lawsuits would produce a decision that results in appeal to a higher court ~ the 'individual mandate' is central to other provisions and is central to 'general welfare' ~ everyone who buys health insurance today pays a significant upcharge [some estimate as high as 12%-15%+ of premiums] to cover the costs of the uninsured ~ it will take time to untangle all the legal challenges ~ but I predict the 'individual mandate' will be declared constitutional ~ Sooz

MEET JUDGE HENRY HUDSON.... Federal district court Judge Henry Hudson ruled the way conservatives wanted him to earlier today, finding the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act to be unconstitutional. Republicans are applauding the outcome, which will be appealed, and which declares unconstitutional an idea they came up with in the first place.

It's worth pausing to note why Virginia's hyper-conservative attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli (R), hoped Hudson would hear this case, and why health care reform advocates expected this outcome.

Under the circumstances, today's ruling wasn't exactly a shocker.

Update: On the other hand, it's only fair to note Hudson did show some restraint. His ruling, for example, rejected the plaintiff's request to block implementation of the law, and more importantly, refused to go along with a push to find the entire Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. Instead, he targeted the mandate exclusively, reassuring some reform proponents.

Second Upate: Right Wing Watch takes a look at Hudson's ties to the right, which are pretty extensive.

—Steve Benen 1:55 PM December 13, 2010

http://www.washingtonmont...idual/2010_12/027060.php

LOL
I was just about to suggest that the clause mandating compulsory insurance may have been worded by the Repugnants and included as a poison pill.
If that is indeed the case, the Dems were simply outsmarted.

It doesn't apply universally, that is, many people don't own cars.  You only have to buy the insurance if you own a car, which is a choice.There is no such choice in the health care bill.  But I think the law will eventually be upheld.  The alternative is to have true taxpayer funded universal health care.  There are too many parts of the new law that people and businesses like and they are not going to tolerate scrapping the whole law, nor can it be implemented without additional income from the presently uninsured.  It's going to be a long road.
  

The issue is constitutionality not whether people like it or not.

  

The issue to be decided by the courts is constitutionality, however whether the issue is brought all the way to the Supreme Court or whether another solution is found is going to be decided by people and businesses.  Whether the courts find it constitutiional or not, it isn't going to just disappear.  And the one provision cannot just disappear without affecting the other provisions so there is more to the issue than the court's findings.

If public popularity can sway the SCOTUS you need a new set of Supreme Court justices - in a real hurry.

I expect the Republicans would prefer to see the Health Care Act defeated in the courts rather than them having to actually do something about it in Congress.  Anybody with a lick of sense knows that some form of universal health in the U.S. is a necessity, not an option.  But they are also playing to their dwindling base and are prepared to sacrifice millions upon millions of Americans who cannot now afford as well as those who will soon be unable to afford health care. 

What's strange is that the very arguments they are using to defeat Obamacare are double edged sword which, if successful, would also gut their so-called plan to improve health care.  If, as they say, the regulation health insurance is strictly a state right, any federal law which mandates allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines would be just as unconsititutional.  Only the states, who regulate insurance, could decide that and I can't see the people of Minnesota, who have among the lowest rates, really wanting to subsidize those in Florida who have the highest rates.

It seems to me that GOP opposition to universal health care is strictly an ideological argument which does not take into consideration the general welfare of the American people.  Study after study as well as a multitude of anecdotal evidence shows that the U.S. has the worst, least effective health care system in the industrialized world, below even that of many third world countries while, at the same time, Americans pay almost double the cost of any other country.  Ideolgical acceptable bandaids aren't going to fix it.

Yesterday I heard Boehner describing Obamacare as a "job killer." What he doesn't realize is that it is the current system rather than Obamacare that is the real job killer.  Those companies who provide healthcare for their employees are labouring under an exreme penalty double that of any of their foreign competitors while those that provide no or limited coverage suffer from increased absenteeism, lack of loyalty from employees and employees who use them as stopping points while looking for employers who do provide benefits.

WHOA ~ getting interesting-er and interesting-er ~ Sooz

HENRY HUDSON'S YEARS OF 'ACTIVE SERVICE TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY'.... Federal District Judge Henry Hudson caused quite a stir this week with his odd ruling on the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. Matt Finkelstein reports today on Hudson's explanation of how he earned a lifetime appointment to the federal bench in the first pace.

I realize it can get tiresome to see folks like me say "imagine if a Democrat had done this," but once in a while, I think these comparisons have real merit.

Consider a hypothetical. Imagine if an important court case came before a federal judge nominated by President Obama and confirmed by a Democratic-led Senate. Then imagine we learned that this same judge owns part of a political operation that attacks the same law about which he/she was hearing arguments.

Making matters worse, that Democratic judge admits to having campaigned for the seat on the bench, earning it through 20 years of active service to the Democratic Party, helping the various campaigns of Democratic candidates.

And then to top it off, imagine if that judge's ruling, an obvious example of judicial activism, was premised on a bizarre legal analysis that no one of any ideology was prepared to defend.

Is there any doubt at all that, if this scenario actually happened, the right would be apoplectic? That the judge's name would be on every Fox News broadcast as an example of courts run amok? That we'd hear some congressional Republicans raising the specter of impeachment against that judge?

—Steve Benen 11:20 AM December 15, 2010

http://www.washingtonmont...idual/2010_12/027097.php

VERY interesting ~ kinda blows a BIG hole in the 'Rs = strict constitutionalists' fable ~ Sooz

THE PROGRESS REPORT

Don't forget you loaded SCOTUS.