Comments

You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Judge in Va. strikes down federal health care law

2010-12-13

A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
APee story, so hit link for rest until FoxNews gets it up. Still, good news for the fight against ObamaCare.
He also said that the unconstitutional parts were severable, which is interesting because no severability clause was included in the bill. But what's a clause or two for a judge?

Posted by:DarthVader

#5 Having just finished it, Hudson's decision seems a reasonable best-case scenario. However while it's not exactly a house of cards there are many avenues of attack open to the government that will appeal strongly to appellate judges should such be predisposed to want to uphold the new law.

If this decision stands (big "if") it will likely either accelerate the intended consequences (bankrupting private insurers), force a massive overhaul of the legislation, or both despite blocking only one narrow provision of the bill. But it's worth remembering that two other federal judges have already found in favor of the government and others have merely dismissed challenges. This is an important first step but no more than that.

Posted by: AzCat 2010-12-13 21:37

#4 he pulled the non-severability from his ass. It will get a looking-at

Posted by: Frank G 2010-12-13 21:15

#3 The case MUST be made that it is NOT severable, so the ENTIRE law can be struck doown.

Posted by: OldSpook 2010-12-13 19:01

#2 He held it severable because otherwise he would have had to strike down the entire law, and he didn't want to go that far.

Posted by: Iblis 2010-12-13 14:02

#1 Judge Hudson on the governments argument that it has the power to require individuals to buy health insurance:

Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing or nutritional decisions, Hudson wrote. This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by previous legal cases around the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Are ya taking it seriously yet, you despotic dingbat?

Posted by: ryuge 2010-12-13 14:01

00:00