SCOTUS Wimps Out On Obamacare — Again.
Obamacare has once again been rescued by a Supreme Court that seems determined to keep it alive regardless of the Constitution or
precedent. Thursday morning [6/17/2021], the justices dismissed California v. Texas based on the dubious proposition
that a coalition of 18 GOP states had no legal standing to challenge the "reform" law or its infamous insurance mandate.
The majority didn't deign to consider the merits of the lawsuit, which argued that the mandate was not merely unconstitutional
but inseverable from the rest of the statute. The Court's cowardice drew a blistering dissent from Justice Samuel Alito,
who accused the majority of ignoring decades of precedent in order to deny the states standing: ["]No one
can fail to be impressed by the lengths to which this Court has been willing to go to defend the ACA against all threats.
A penalty is a tax. The United States is a State. And 18 States who bear costly burdens under the ACA cannot even
get a foot in the door to raise a constitutional challenge. Fans of judicial inventiveness will applaud once again.
But I must respectfully dissent.["]
Court Tosses Obamacare Challenge by 18 States on Grounds of Legal Standing. By a vote of 7 to 2 the Supreme
Court has upheld the Obamacare law for the third time, ducking the question of its constitutionality by ruling that those
challenging it lacked the required legal standing to do so. The law was enacted in March 2010 without a single
Republican vote in Congress on final passage. Insurance premiums have since skyrocketed, and many consumers have been
unable to afford premiums and have lost their insurance. In 2016 Forbes wrote that there is "overwhelming evidence that
Obamacare caused premiums to increase substantially." Judge Reed O'Connor of the Northern District of Texas ruled on
Dec. 14, 2018, that the Obamacare law was unconstitutional in its entirety, but stayed enforcement during the appeals
process. When Congress in 2017 effectively repealed the mandate that compelled Americans to buy health insurance, it
"sawed off the last leg it [Obamacare] stood on," the judge held. "The court finds the individual mandate 'is essential
to' and inseverable from 'the other provisions of'" the statute.
Supreme Court rejects Republican challenge to ObamaCare law. The US Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a
Republican bid that had been backed by former President Donald Trump's administration to invalidate the ObamaCare health care
law, ruling that Texas and other challengers had no legal standing to file their lawsuit. The 7-2 ruling authored by
liberal Justice Stephen Breyer did not decide broader legal questions raised in the case about whether a key provision in the
law, which is formally called the Affordable Care Act, was unconstitutional and, if so, whether the rest of the statute
should be struck down.
Why They Hate
Trump. [Scroll down] Obama/Biden was the most activist administration since LBJ, intent on promoting
universal abortion "rights," open borders, and globalist policies that weakened the United States, and they used the Justice
Department and FBI, along with many other agencies, to persecute those who opposed them. What they especially attacked
was the traditional faith of the heartland. Hobby Lobby found that out, so expect there to be more Hobby Lobbies under
Biden. When the CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby, David Green, stood up for what he believed and refused to fund
contraceptive coverage mandated under Obamacare, Obama's Justice Department sued with the intention of fining and
imprisoning him into submission. Green refused to bow to the Deep State and ultimately won in the Supreme Court.
are no Obama judges or Trump judges, except when there are. In November 2018, in response to another of the
usual leftist rulings from the Ninth Circuit Court out of San Francisco, President Trump referred to the judge making the
determination as an "Obama Judge." Responding to a query regarding this event made by the Associated Press, the Supreme
Court chief justice, John Roberts, is quoted as saying, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton
judges." [...] In 2012, it was this same Chief Justice Roberts who changed President Obama's penalty from regulation into a
tax from the bench to save the dramatic Obamacare change of relationship between the citizens and their government.
Even President Obama's representatives in front of the court argued against the penalty being considered a tax. Our
chief justice lives in an Obamacare fantasy world of his own design.
SCOTUS: Little Sisters
of the Poor Win Again. During the 2016 presidential campaign, candidate Donald Trump pledged to end government
abuse of the so-called contraception mandate. Health and Human Services (HHS) bureaucrats had been using this bizarre
interpretation of Obamacare's preventative care provision as a pretext for trampling on the conscience rights of
organizations whose principals had religious or moral objections to paying for certain types of birth control. In
October of 2017, President Trump made good on his campaign promise by instructing HHS to issue a new rule dramatically
expanding the mandate's conscience exemption. Wednesday [7/8/2020], in a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the
exemption in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul v. Pennsylvania.
Court allows plan for religious limits to Obamacare contraceptive coverage. The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday
cleared the way for the Trump administration to give the nation's employers more leeway in refusing to provide free birth
control for their workers under the Affordable Care Act. The ruling is a victory for the administration's plan to
greatly expand the kinds of employers who can cite religious or moral objections in declining to include contraceptives in
their health care plans.
administration calls for Supreme Court to strike down ObamaCare. The Trump administration on Thursday night
argued in a legal brief filed to the Supreme Court that the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA) should be invalidated. The
legal filing, while expected, makes official the Trump administration's position in the Supreme Court against the health law
months ahead of the election, at a time when Democrats are hammering President Trump over his position on health care.
Overturning the ACA would take away health coverage for about 20 million people, and the stakes are even higher given the
effects of the current pandemic.
The Editor says...
There will always be viruses in the air, and there will always be sick people around; therefore, from that perspective, there will
never be a good time to repeal Obamacare. But freedom is more important than safety or health insurance.
Obamacare Has Another
Rendezvous With SCOTUS. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear another constitutional challenge to Obamacare.
The court's latest rendezvous with the "Affordable Care Act" became all but inevitable in late 2018 when U.S. District Judge
Reed O'Connor ruled, in Texas v. United States, that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and inseverable
from the rest of the statute. The latter defect, he held, required him to strike down the entire law. The case
inevitably landed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld O'Connor's ruling on the mandate, but remanded the
severability question back to him for further "analysis." This satisfied neither the Republicans who filed the original
lawsuit nor Obamacare's Democratic defenders.
Appeals court skeptical
Obamacare can survive. A panel of federal appeals judges aggressively questioned whether Obamacare can survive
during Tuesday afternoon oral arguments in a case that could upend the 2010 health care law. Two Republican appointees
on the three-judge panel frequently interrupted attorneys to question whether the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is
unconstitutional and if not whether the entire law could stand without it. The ACA's future appeared murky after two
hours of oral arguments at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but it's not clear if the judges were ready to uphold a
federal judge's earlier decision invalidating the law.
Appeals Court Looks
Askance at Obamacare. Tuesday afternoon [7/9/2019], the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in
Texas v. Azar and aggressively interrogated attorneys defending Obamacare's individual mandate. They seemed
deeply skeptical that the mandate can survive constitutional muster unless the lawyers representing Democratic attorneys
general in 21 states and the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives can produce more convincing arguments than
they have thus far put forward. This may well endanger the entire health-care law.
States Win $839 Million Obamacare Lawsuit. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is leading a five-state coalition that on
Thursday [8/23/2018] won an $839 million judgment against the federal government in an Obamacare lawsuit, a massive blow to the
Obama administration's namesake legislation. The Affordable Care Act (ACA, better known as Obamacare) requires medical providers
to pay a Health Insurance Provider Fee (HIPF). Even though the ACA exempts states from paying that fee when providing health care,
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) during the Obama era created a regulation requiring states to pay the fee anyway,
a fee that is styled as a tax on the states.
is right not to defend ObamaCare. In the Trump administration's response to the lawsuit brought by Texas and
the Texas Public Policy Foundation challenging the current constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Department
of Justice agreed that several key portions of the ACA were unconstitutional. Immediately, several commentators
reported that the Justice Department's failure to defend the law in its entirety was a radical and dangerous departure from
precedent. The Associated Press called the move a "rare departure from the Justice Department's practice of defending
federal laws in court." [...] The truth is, the government's decision not to defend a clearly unconstitutional law is neither
unprecedented, nor even rare. Indeed, it is what the founders expected and precisely how we should want government
lawyers to behave.
of Obamacare should be set aside. The Trump administration's decision to argue that part of the Affordable Care
Act is unconstitutional — the requirement that every American purchase health insurance, known as the individual
mandate — raises real doubts about the law's future. The Supreme Court initially upheld the mandate, ruling
that the penalty for not purchasing health insurance would raise revenue and therefore is allowed under Congress' taxing
authority. But last year, Congress eliminated the penalty, meaning the mandate would no longer raise revenue. A
20-state coalition and the Texas Public Policy Foundation have now been joined by the Justice Department arguing that because
the individual mandate no longer satisfies the court's test, it cannot be a constitutional use of Congress' authority.
Legal Challenge May Unravel ObamaCare. Most Americans understandably consider ObamaCare's legality a settled
question, following the Supreme Court's notoriously contorted 2012 NFIB v. Sebilius 5-4 majority decision by Chief
Justice John Roberts. A new challenge filed in federal court earlier this year by twenty state attorneys general,
however, presents a novel and potentially fatal challenge to Barack Obama's ramshackle signature legislation. Adding
delicious irony, Chief Justice Roberts's dubious legal rationalization planted the very seed that may trigger its own
time-delayed demise. Compounding that irony, the tax cut legislation signed into law by President Trump provides the
specific mechanism for ObamaCare's possible unraveling.
court halts Obamacare appeal, deals setback to president. A federal appeals court put a key Obamacare case on
hold Monday [12/5/2016] as judges begin to anticipate a President Trump, and move to give his administration the chance to
change the Obama administration's legal strategy on everything from immigration to health care. The latest case is a
landmark challenge brought by the U.S. House against the Health and Human Services, which was sending Obamacare money to
insurance companies despite Congress specifically canceling the money in the annual appropriations process.
Little Sisters' Gutsy Gamble Touches on an
Issue That Trumps All Politics. [O]ur country is hurtling toward a constitutional showdown over religious liberty right here in
America. That'll come in the next month or so, when the Catholic charity known as Little Sisters of the Poor makes at the Supreme Court
a gutsy gamble for protection from the birth-control mandate the Obama administration has promulgated under ObamaCare. Guess who filed
the first friend-of-the-court brief on their side. Yes, it was Orthodox Jewish rabbis. They know that this case isn't about
simply whether a group of nuns has to fill out paperwork to avoid being forced to pay for birthcontrol for their employees.
Court refuses to take another Obamacare case. The Supreme Court refused Tuesday [1/19/2016] to take up an appeal that says
Congress flouted the Constitution by kick-starting Obamacare in the wrong chamber. Justices have already weighed in on the
Affordable Care Act's mandates, government subsidies and birth control rules, but declined to wade into a bid by a conservative group
to scrap the entire law based on the origination clause drafted by the Founding Fathers.
Sisters of the Poor nuns will take Obamacare birth control mandate to Supreme Court. An elder-care charity run
by nuns asked the Supreme Court on Monday [1/4/2016] to shield them from Obamacare's birth control mandate, arguing that the government
can provide their organizations' female employees with contraceptives if it really wants to but shouldn't force them to facilitate the
coverage. Attorneys for the Little Sisters of the Poor and three Christian colleges say the administration already has exempted a
series of employers, undercutting its push to force religiously affiliated groups to formally opt out of the regulations so that
a third party can step in and pay for the drugs and services.
man our founders warned us against. Although the Supreme Court has tied itself into knots in the Obamacare
cases, your attention is warranted in the case of House v. Burwell pending before Judge Rosemary Collyer of the
federal district court for the District of Columbia. Jonathan Turley represents the House in the lawsuit; [...] Hans Von
Spakovsky writes about the case in the National Interest column "The war over Obamacare is NOT over." The complaint
carefully sets forth the legal details underlying the lawsuit.
Court to review religious nonprofits' exemption from ObamaCare. The latest ObamaCare case involves objections by
faith-based hospitals, colleges and charities to the process the administration devised to spare them from paying for contraceptives
for women covered under their health plans, and yet ensure that those women can obtain birth control at no extra cost.
Takes Up Little Sisters of Poor Case Against Obama Administration. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed today to take up the
case that the Little Sisters of the Poor — an order of Catholic nuns — has brought against the Obama administration
for violating the sisters' right to the free exercise of religion. "All we ask is that our rights not be taken away," said Sister
Loraine Mari Maguire, the Mother Provincial of the order, in a statement released by the Becket Fund, the nonprofit law firm that
represents the sisters.
Another ObamaCare challenge
heads to Supreme Court. Foes of President Obama's health care law are taking another crack at upending the legislation,
filing a new challenge with the Supreme Court after a separate long-shot case was rejected earlier this year. The petition filed
Monday [10/26/2015] by the Pacific Legal Foundation, like the prior challenge, focuses on an obscure aspect of the law. The case
contends ObamaCare violates the provision of the Constitution that requires tax-raising bills to originate in the House of Representatives.
Clears The Way For Obamacare Lawsuit To Proceed. A federal judge dealt House Republicans another win in their
lawsuit against the Obama administration Monday [10/21/2015], denying the White House a chance to appeal her ruling that the
House has grounds to sue over Obamacare. Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer rejected the administration's request for a quick
appeal of her ruling, reinforcing her earlier decision and clearing the path for the suit to move forward, reported the
The Editor says...
That's a strange choice of words by the writer at the Daily Caller. The word dealt, in cases
like this, means to inflict. One does not inflict a win.
Supreme Court sleeper case that everyone should be watching. Supreme Court season is officially upon us, which
means we can expect another round of HHS abortion-pill mandate cases and the strong possibility of the Supreme Court taking
up one or more of them. And, thanks to the recent Dordt College victory in the Eighth Circuit, we have an official
circuit split, meaning the probability of the Court taking one or more of these cases has significantly increased. If you
are scratching your head thinking this issue was already resolved with the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood Specialties
case a little over a year ago, you're half right.
Contraception opt-out violates
religious freedom: U.S. appeals court. A U.S. appeals court has ruled that President Barack Obama's healthcare law violates the
rights of religiously affiliated employers by forcing them to help provide contraceptive coverage even though they do not have to pay for it.
Parting ways with all other appeals courts that have considered the issue, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis on Thursday [9/17/2015]
issued a pair of decisions upholding orders by two lower courts barring the government from enforcing the law's contraceptive provisions against a
group of religiously affiliated employers. The split in the circuit courts created makes it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will take
up the issue in its coming term, which begins in October and runs through June. Several employers have already filed petitions with the court.
can't restrict sale of fixed-payout health plans, judge says. A federal judge sided Friday [9/11/2015] with an
insurance company that says the Obama administration had no right to restrict the sale of its products to people who also
hold medical insurance that complies with Obamacare's standards. The plaintiff, Central United Life, said a significant
portion of its revenue is derived from the sale of fixed indemnity plans, which pay out a specific cash amount when a beneficiary
receives a health service, regardless of what the hospital or other provider charges.
says Boehner can sue president over Obamacare. A federal judge ruled on Wednesday [9/9/2015] that House Speaker John
Boehner's lawsuit over the implementation of Obamacare can move forward, setting the stage for another high-stakes legal
battle over President Obama's signature legislative accomplishment. Though the judge ruled that House leaders do have
legal standing and thus can sue Obama, it wasn't a complete victory for Republicans. Some legal experts questioned whether
the ruling puts the court in the middle of a "political food fight."
scores early win in ObamaCare lawsuit. A federal district judge on Wednesday [9/9/2015] delivered a blow to the
Obama administration, ruling that the House Republican lawsuit against ObamaCare can move forward. "The Court concludes
that the House has standing to pursue those constitutional claims," Judge Rosemary Collyer wrote in a 43-page decision.
Welcome to the United States of Alice. In
2012, ACA was challenged for the first time before the Supreme Court. The majority of justices invalidated the administration's
argument that the law does not impose a tax, but then turned the rejected contention into the reason for the law to stand. "That
carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of sophists," wrote the four dissenting justices.
look to deliver blow against ObamaCare tax. Despite the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding ObamaCare subsidies,
opponents of the law remain poised to strike a key blow against another component of the health care overhaul in a matter of
months. Republicans, with help from Democrats, have gained momentum in their long-running effort to repeal the law's
controversial 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices. The House voted 280-140 to nix the tax, which went into
effect in 2013, in June; the debate heads next to the Senate.
Now, Focus on Repeal.
The Supreme Court's ruling in King v. Burwell is disappointing. But it also provides a welcome moment of clarity:
We can finally dispense with the false belief that the Supreme Court will save us from Obamacare. It is perhaps a
blessing for the cause of repeal that all eyes will now turn to the presidential candidates and to Congress, whose job
it is to repeal Obamacare in full in early 2017. Accountability is no longer divided. The political branches
Slams Roberts as Biased in Obamacare Cases. In a blistering dissent from the majority in King v. Burwell this
morning [6/25/2015], Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said President Obama's signature domestic policy achievement should
be called "SCOTUScare" rather than Obamacare, in light of how many times Chief Justice John Roberts has intervened to protect
the law from a crippling legal defeat. Scalia argued that Roberts rewrote the law twice in 2012, and has now done so
a third time in his King decision, which allows the IRS to continue providing subsidies to people who purchase insurance in the
federal government's health-care exchange.
saves Obamacare for 2nd time; Scalia chides: 'Words have no meaning'. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
has saved Obamacare for a second time, writing the majority opinion Thursday [6/25/2015] that upheld the health care law's
key provision of paying tax subsidies to customers in all states and saying the law otherwise would be a mess —
something he doubted Congress intended. The ruling reverberated immediately on Capitol Hill, but legal analysts said
it has implications far beyond the Affordable Care Act because it opens an avenue for judges to substitute their own
judgments for the intentions of Congress.
Makes Key Factual Mistake At The Start Of His ObamaCare Decision. On the very first page of [Chief Justice]
Robert's [sic] King v. Burwell opinion is a glaring mistake about ObamaCare. The chief justice explains how states
that tried ObamaCare-like market changes — called "guaranteed issue" and "community rating" — saw
their insurance markets caught in a death spiral as young and healthy dropped coverage and premiums shot up.
Roberts then claims that in 2006 "Massachusetts discovered a way to make the guaranteed issue and community rating
requirements work" by adding an individual mandate and premium subsidies. Since ObamaCare is modeled on Massachusetts
law, ipso facto ObamaCare must also be working. And so the court had an overriding reason to protect it, even
if it meant twisting the law into pretzels.
Obamacare, John Roberts helps overthrow the Constitution. Conservatives are dismayed about the Supreme
Court's complicity in rewriting the Affordable Care Act — its ratification of the IRS's disregard of the
statute's plain and purposeful language. But they have contributed to this outcome. Their decades of
populist praise of judicial deference to the political branches has borne this sour fruit. The court says the
ACA's stipulation that subsidies are to be administered by the IRS using exchanges "established by the State" should
not be construed to mean what it says. Otherwise the law will not reach as far as it will if federal exchanges
can administer subsidies in states that choose not to establish exchanges. The ACA's legislative history,
however, demonstrates that the subsidies were deliberately restricted to distribution through states' exchanges
in order to pressure the states into establishing their own exchanges.
Beck: Obamacare vote means U.S. is 'done': 'There's nothing left'. Radio host Glenn Beck said the Supreme
Court's 6-3 decision to uphold Obamacare for a second time is proof "the country as you know it, and as it was designed,
is done." Mr. Beck's reaction to the high court's King v. Burwell decision in many ways mirrors Justice Antonin
Scalia's dissent. "Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is 'established
by the State,'" Justice Scalia said. The libertarian radio host said that the accumulation of U.S. debt, coupled with
a Supreme Court that acts as a legislative instead of a judicial body, will force the country to "reset" in the future.
James Madison and Antonin Scalia
blister a lawless Supreme Court. Echoing Madison's sentiments, in his dissent to the ludicrous majority decision
of King v. Burwell, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: ["]Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established
by a State is 'established by the State' ... Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose
this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court:
The Affordable Care Act must be saved ... We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.["]
Bader Ginsburg v. Life and Liberty. In the 2014 case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby,
Ginsburg wrote a dissent arguing that the government could force a family-owned business to engage in activities that
violated the religious convictions of its owners. In this case, the specific act was providing insurance coverage for
the abortion-inducing drugs and devices required by regulations issued under the Affordable Care Act. At that time,
Ginsburg argued that only religious organizations could be exempted from government regulations that required the
administrators or operators to violate their religious convictions. "I would confine religious exemptions under the Act
to organizations formed 'for a religious purpose,' 'engage(d) primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,' and not
'engaged ... substantially in the exchange of goods and services for money beyond nominal amounts,'" she wrote.
Court Ruling — Obamacare Subsidies Stay. In a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief
Justice Roberts, the Court held that subsidies are available on the federal exchanges. Those voting
in the majority were Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Had the court ruled
otherwise, it would have put all of Obamacare in jeopardy, since 38 states do not have exchanges and
Obamacare is too expensive for most people without a subsidy.
Blasts Obamacare Ruling: 'Words Have No Meaning'. The Supreme Court of the United States effectively rewrote
the text of Obamacare to save the legislation. By a 6-3 majority, the Court upheld the Fourth Circuit's decision in
King v. Burwell and decided that federal subsidies were available on state Obamacare exchanges, even though the text of the
so-called Affordable Care Act said that such subsidies were only available on "State" exchanges. The majority
acknowledged that the word "State" was, at best, "ambiguous." And it rejected the idea that an executive agency,
in this case the Internal Revenue Service, could decide the meaning of that term. Rewriting the law is evidently
meant for the courts, not the administration — or Congress.
Supreme Court Caves on Obamacare
Again. The Supreme Court had an opportunity, with its ruling in King v. Burwell, to determine whether
the United States is a nation of laws or of men. Today [6/25/2015], in a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that we have
devolved into the latter. Although the text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare)
clearly states that the government may issue subsidies only through insurance exchanges established by the states, Obama
administration bureaucrats unilaterally rewrote that part of the law so that the IRS could dispense such premium assistance
through "marketplaces" created by the federal government. The plaintiffs in King sued the government on the
grounds that the Executive Branch has no power to thus alter an act of Congress. Incredibly, SCOTUS has sided with
the White House.
9 Quotes From Justice Scalia's Scathing Dissent in King v. Burwell. [#3] "Words no longer have meaning
if an Exchange that is not established by a State is 'established by the State.'" [#4] "Under all the usual
rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem
always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved."
Gets It Wrong Again. The text of the law authorizes federal subsidies on health-insurance exchanges
"established by the state," but does not authorize them on exchanges established by the federal government.
Since most states have not established exchanges, reading the law the way it was written would limit the law's reach.
The administration therefore decided not to do so — and the Court has blessed its decision, and barred future
administrations from revisiting it.
Media Doesn't Want Americans To Know Anything About King v. Burwell. According to a new poll by the Kaiser
Family Foundation, 7 in 10 Americans have heard little or nothing about King v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court case
that will, any day now, decide the fate of Obamacare's health insurance subsidies for millions of Americans. Yet 63 percent
of those surveyed also say that if the court rules against the government, Congress should act to keep those subsidies in place.
Got that? The vast majority of Americans know almost nothing about this case, but 63 percent have an opinion about what
Congress should do in response to a ruling that carries certain policy implications. How can this be?
Republicans craft Obamacare subsidies alternative ahead of Supreme Court ruling. House
Republicans settled on the outlines of a plan Wednesday [6/17/2015] to wean the country off of
Obamacare's subsidies in anticipation of a Supreme Court ruling this month that could throw the
massive health program into chaos. Described as a "work in progress," the plan would continue to
pay full subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to all beneficiaries regardless of where they live,
but starting next year states could begin to opt out of Obamacare, taking the money as a block grant
to help their residents obtain insurance however local officials see fit. The block grants and
subsidies, including those for states that stay in Obamacare, would expire in 2017, forcing the next
president and Congress to replace the law entirely.
Hillary's Elected President, Get Ready for Massive Obamacare Taxes. The Supreme Court will soon announce its decision in King
v. Burwell, a case that could have far-ranging impact on the Affordable Care Act. The system more commonly known as Obamacare pays
subsidies to taxpayers below 400 percent of the poverty line to cover health-insurance premiums. The plaintiffs in King
argue that the explicit language of the law forbids subsidy payments to those purchasing health insurance outside of a state exchange.
If the Supreme Court decides to follow the explicit textual language of the ACA, people in 34 states could end up with skyrocketing
premiums and no way to pay them.
cast Supreme Court's subsidies ruling as final Obamacare showdown. President Obama and
his top aides are increasingly portraying this month's Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare subsidies
as the final showdown for the health care law, saying that if the justices rule in their favor it
should be the signal for Republicans to give up their attacks and move on to other fights. Mr.
Obama blasted the court last week for even taking up the case, arguing that his signature law
"doesn't need fixing."
"Moral Weight" Behind A Constitutional Monstrosity. Politico reports that the President is now trying to
place "unusual moral weight" behind his case for fudging the text of Obamacare to provide subsidies in states without
exchanges. "Unusual" is putting it generously. I'd say the moral reasons to let the IRS rewrite Obamacare
are about as strong as the legal justifications: very, very weak. There is nothing moral about misleading
people to achieve your political goals. That's true whether you're trying to get a law passed and assure people
that they will be able to keep their doctor and insurance, or you are trying to expand the number of people enrolling
and you tell people they are entitled to subsidies they don't qualify for.
Obama wouldn't sign GOP plan to extend insurance subsidies. U.S. President Barack Obama would not sign
a Republican plan to extend subsidies for buying insurance under Obamacare if the Supreme Court rules against such
assistance in the pending King v. Burwell case, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said on
No Proof Americans Want The Supreme Court To Save Obamacare. [N]o challenge has provoked a wall of
fabricated anger quite like the debate around the King v. Burwell. Left-partisan punditry continues to
act like millions could lose insurance subsidies because of a mere "typo" rather than a major discrepancy embedded
in a massive reform law that, at the very least, deserves some scrutiny from the courts. That seems to also
be what The Washington Post seems to believe.
blasts Supreme Court for accepting challenge to health care law. President Obama assaulted the nation's
top court and seemed to criticize the U.S. legal system as a whole Monday [6/8/2015], with the former constitutional law
professor declaring that the Supreme Court was wrong to even accept a challenge to his signature health care reform law
and deriding the fact that an "individual district court judge" was able to derail his deportation amnesty. The
president made the comments during a press conference in Krun, Germany, after the Group of Seven summit.
Congress can fix health law if court rules against it. President Barack Obama says he
has no alternate plan if the Supreme Court invalidates a key benefit of his health care law and he
places the burden on the Republican-controlled Congress to fix the law if the high court wipes out
insurance for millions of Americans.
Can King v. Burwell
Revive the Economy? The Democrats and their media allies have predicted wrack and ruin
if the Supreme Court rules against the government in King v. Burwell, a decision that would
stop the IRS from issuing Obamacare subsidies through federal insurance exchanges in three-dozen
states. They have wildly exaggerated the inconvenience that such a ruling would cause a tiny
percentage of the population and ignored the benefits that it would provide tens of millions of
Americans. One of these benefits would be the removal of PPACA's dead weight from an economy whose
first quarter performance suggests that the anemic Obama recovery may be stalling.
slams Obamacare case as 'twisted interpretation of four words'. President Obama argued
Monday [6/8/2015] that the Supreme Court case on the legality of Obamacare subsidies is a
no-brainer, and said it's a case the high court probably shouldn't have been bothered with.
"This should be an easy case," Obama said when asked about the pending case after the G-7 meeting in
Germany. "Frankly, it probably shouldn't even have been taken up."
ruling a time bomb for Democrats? Democrats and Republicans are sitting on the edge of
their seats, waiting to see what the Supreme Court will decide in King v. Burwell, the looming
decision about the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as it has come to be known. [...] The
plaintiffs have argued that based on the literal reading of the legislation, the government is only
supposed to provide citizens with subsidies in states that set up their own health care exchanges
(a total of 16 states).
judge skeptical of W.H. bid to toss John Boehner's suit over Obamacare. A federal
judge resisted the administration's quest Thursday [5/28/2015] to kill the House GOP's lawsuit over
Obamacare, lending weight to Speaker John A. Boehner's effort to have the courts step in to
referee the simmering separation of powers feud between Congress and President Obama. U.S.
District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, presiding in Washington, pushed back against the Justice
Department's argument that the courts don't have a role to play in refereeing the fight. "You
don't really believe that, do you?" she told administration attorney Joel McElvain.
Words That Imperil Health Care Law Were All a Mistake, Writers Now Say. They are only
four words in a 900-page law: "established by the state." But it is in the ambiguity of those
four words in the Affordable Care Act that opponents found a path to challenge the law, all the way to the
Supreme Court. How those words became the most contentious part of President Obama's signature
domestic accomplishment has been a mystery. Who wrote them, and why?
Game of Chicken with the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs [in King v. Burwell] charge
that, based on a strict reading of single sentence (actually, four words), federal health-insurance
subsidies should be available only in the sixteen states (and the District of Columbia) that set up
their own health exchanges, or marketplaces. This means, they argue, that there should be no subsidies
for people who now buy insurance on the federal exchange in the other thirty-four states. At the moment,
about thirteen million people receive those subsidies. The people with the most riding on the outcome,
of course, are those thirteen million.
Court tosses pro-ObamaCare contraception ruling. The Supreme Court on Monday [4/27/2015] gave new
life to a lawsuit challenging ObamaCare's contraception mandate, striking down a previous ruling in
favor of the federal government. The justices asked an appeals court in Cincinnati to
reconsider a legal challenge that the Catholic ministries in Michigan and Tennessee filed against an
ObamaCare provision that requires employers to cover birth control for all workers.
Will Be Blamed for King v. Burwell 'Chaos'? A Supreme Court ruling against the Obama
administration in King v. Burwell, according to conventional Beltway wisdom, will create
serious political problems for governors and legislators in the 34 states that declined to set up
Obamacare insurance exchanges. Most of these officials are Republicans, the thinking goes, and will
thus be blamed for letting petty partisanship deprive their constituents of subsidies while plunging state
insurance markets into chaos. Public wrath, we are told, will eventually force them to create PPACA
exchanges. However, a new voter survey conducted in the affected states suggests that this is very
unlikely to occur.
Can't Ignore Court on Obamacare. Could the Barack Obama administration really ignore
an adverse Supreme Court judgment in the King v. Burwell health-care litigation, as a University of
Chicago law professor has proposed? Of course not. Obeying the court only with respect to the
plaintiffs in this case would be a flagrant violation of the rule of law. It would put the
administration in the position of flouting the court's authority.
Obama Bypass the Supreme Court? It is time to talk about President Obama's contingency
plan for health care. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier this month in King v. Burwell,
a case challenging the provision of tax credits on federal insurance exchanges. While the legal
issues are dry lawyers' fare — how to interpret several interconnected phrases of the
Affordable Care Act — the practical stakes are high. The government estimates that
millions of Americans will be left without affordable health insurance if it loses.
The Editor says...
The New York Times, official newsletter of the Democratic Party, is trying to sound the alarm about the awful things that will happen
in this country after socialized medicine is outlawed. "Millions" is not a very accurate estimate of the number of people affected.
Medical insurance is not a right, and whether or not it is a necessity or a priority is up to the individual, not the government.
The Sum of All Obamacarian
Fears. If you carefully consider the claims of Obamacare's defenders in King v.
Burwell you will discover that their worst fear, sanctimonious pretense notwithstanding, is not
the loss of insurance subsidies for some Americans. The most terrifying prospect for proponents of
PPACA is that the Court will let Congress clean up its own mess. They do not want our elected
representatives to have another chance to consider the will of the voters while revising Obamacare.
And this is precisely what will happen if the justices fail to find anything in the law's text permitting
subsidies to be distributed via federal exchanges.
Court tries to make sense of poorly drafted Obamacare language. Supreme Court justices
divided sharply Wednesday [3/4/2015] as they heard a third challenge to Obamacare, grappling with the law's
poorly drafted language and trying to decide how broadly Congress intended for the government to pay subsidies
to help Americans buy insurance. The court's more liberal justices offered vocal support for the Obama
administration's holistic reading of the Affordable Care Act, saying they believed Congress intended for
customers in all of the exchanges to be eligible for tax credits even if their states relied on the federal
HealthCare.gov exchange instead.
c'est moi': Obama vs. the people. Indeed, listening to the four liberal justices lay the groundwork for
their opinion Wednesday was akin to watching a team of contortionists on "The Ed Sullivan Show" bend themselves into
pretzels — all for the sake of avoiding the truth. It is probably just a matter of time before they
vote (with the connivance of Chief Justice Roberts and/or Associate Justice Kennedy) to confirm that the state is
whatever Obama declares it to be. As the Sun King, Louis XIV of France, is reputed to have declared,
"L'etat c'est moi." (The state, it is I.) Even more relevant in this case is the king's declaration
that, "It is legal because I wish it." That is the position of President Obama and his team of
lawyers. They are arguing essentially that it doesn't matter what the law says.
at the Death of our Republic. The WSJ reports that everyone had a good chuckle at the
Supreme Court this week during a discussion of the Affordable Care Act. The government lawyer
derided Justice Alito's suggestion that there would be no harm if the Court gutted the system of tax
credits offered by the federal government.
Won't Save Obamacare's Bacon. Supporters of the "Affordable Care Act" have been rather
glum of late. Since the Supreme Court agreed to hear King v. Burwell, a lawsuit that
challenges the Obama administration's decision to funnel insurance subsidies through federal
exchanges established in the 36 states that refused to create PPACA "marketplaces," they have rather
ironically bemoaned the possibility that five unelected justices could do irreparable damage to the law
with one "wrong ruling." Consequently, they have desperately grasped at a thin straw tossed their way by
Justice Anthony Kennedy during Wednesday's oral arguments about the case.
Kennedy Grasps At Straws To Save ObamaCare. For those who haven't followed the news,
the case centers on the question of whether ObamaCare allows subsidies in states that didn't set up
their own exchanges. The language of the law seems painfully obvious that the answer is no.
But during the oral arguments, Kennedy — who will likely be the deciding vote —
suggested that he'd found a "federalism" justification to conclude that, whatever the text appears to say,
subsidies must be allowed in all 50 states, whether they set up their own exchange or are using the
the Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare again. The Obamacare law states that health
premium subsidies are only supposed to go to poor people who buy insurance in state run exchanges.
The idea was that each state would set up a healthcare exchange but many states refused, so the
federal government set up federal exchanges. The people who are signed up under the federal
exchanges are also getting subsidized, even though the wording of the law is very clear that the
subsidies should only go "through an exchange established by the state." Despite this, the Obama
administration claims it should apply to federal exchanges as well. And it looks clear that at
least five and possibly six of the nine justices agree.
Supes Rule Against Obamacare, GOP Must Finish It Off Immediately. Alas, given the
Republicans' general ineptitude — we have to prove we can govern by rolling over for
Harry Reid and the minority Democrats! — nothing is a sure bet. McConnell and Boehner
could easily manage to lose a tactical engagement to a Girls Scouts troop marching up Capitol Hill.
Liberals Are Trying to Intimidate Roberts Court in King v. Burwell Case. On Wednesday
morning, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in King v. Burwell, a challenge to Obamacare that
could gut a core provision of the law. In the lead up to the oral argument, many Obamacare
supporters are attempting to influence the justices, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, who
cast the pivotal vote in the first challenge to Obamacare, National Federation of Independent
Business v. Kathleen Sebelius.
Court arguments end in key ObamaCare case. The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday [3/4/2015]
along ideological lines after hearing a challenge of ObamaCare tax subsidies that, if struck down, could affect
up to 8 million policy holders. The liberal justices peppered Michael Carvin, the lawyer for the
health law challengers, with skeptical questions almost from the outset over his argument to limit the subsidies.
When Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. — who represents the Obama administration — stepped
to the lectern, the liberal justices fell silent, and Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia took over.
We all win if Supremes
gut ObamaCare. Don't be bamboozled by talk of disaster. Senate Republican leaders
indicated on Monday that they'll be ready to provide financial assistance to "help Americans keep
the coverage they picked for a transitional period." Republicans also announced a plan to create
"a bridge away from ObamaCare." Losing in court will force the president to finally negotiate
changes to his expensive, unworkable health law. Suddenly, the politically impossible —
compromise on ObamaCare — will become politically inevitable. Look for big changes in the
second half of 2015.
What Is at Stake in
the King v. Burwell Case? The question before the Supreme Court is whether the Obama
administration overstepped its authority in issuing an IRS ruling that conflicts with the Obamacare
statute. The statute allows payment of Obamacare subsidies only to individuals who obtain coverage
"through an Exchange established by [a] State." However, the IRS rule allows subsidies to flow to
individuals who get coverage through a federally established exchange as well. This interpretation
was made after it became clear that many states were unlikely to set up their own exchanges because
of the cost and complexity involved.
Things You Should Know about the IRS Rule Challenged in King v. Burwell. This week,
the Supreme Court considers King v. Burwell. At issue is whether the IRS exceeded its
authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by issuing a final IRS rule that
expanded the application of the Act's subsidies and mandates beyond the limits imposed by the statute.
King v. Burwell is not a constitutional challenge. It challenges an IRS rule as
being inconsistent with the Act it purports to implement. The case is a straightforward question of
statutory interpretation. Here are seven things everyone needs to know about how the IRS developed
the rule at issue in King v. Burwell.
King v. Burwell: 4 words and
8 million Americans. With King v. Burwell to be argued before the Supreme Court
on Wednesday, supporters of the Affordable Care Act are rehearsing the same sketchy arguments about
the language and history of the healthcare law.
Washington Ready for the Death of Obamacare? The possibility that the U.S. Supreme
Court will soon eliminate federal subsidies for people buying health insurance through the
Affordable Care Act is the biggest story in politics and economics that no one wants to talk about.
But the stakes in King v. Burwell, which the court will hear on March 4, could scarcely be
higher: If the plaintiffs prevail, millions of people in 34 states who bought insurance on federal
exchanges would suddenly lose the subsidies that make it affordable. Consequently, most would lose
The Editor says...
The idea that someone might lose their coverage is apparently intended to sound like a bad thing — but perhaps these
are the people who didn't want coverage and were forced to buy it by the Obamacare law. In that case, they are
being relieved of a burden.
The Editor says...
Mr. Obama is suddenly concerned about the "legal basis" for modifications to Obamacare. Is that
irony or is it hypocrisy?
Supreme Court challenge threatens to gut Obamacare. After narrowly surviving a bitter
constitutional showdown in 2010, President Obama's Affordable Care Act is once again in serious
peril as the US Supreme Court prepares this week to take up a new legal challenge that threatens to
gut Obamacare. A decision in favor of the challengers could block tax credits and render health
insurance unaffordable for more than 7 million of the 11 million Americans who have signed up
for coverage on healthcare exchanges. That, in turn, might plunge the president's health care reform
effort into a death spiral, according to economists.
King v. Burwell
Is Much Bigger Than Obamacare. [Scroll down] Specifically, it is about the separation
of powers doctrine. The Constitution grants the power to tax and spend to Congress alone.
Yet the executive branch, under the Obama administration, has brazenly arrogated the power to spend with
its IRS rule authorizing the distribution of subsidies through federal exchanges. The original cert
petition filed with the Court on behalf of the plaintiffs phrases it as follows: "If the ACA means
what it says... the IRS is illegally spending billions of taxpayer dollars every month without
Ruling May End Civilization As We Know It. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments
in King v. Burwell three weeks from now, and the possibility that the justices might uphold
the health care "reform" law as written has driven our liberal friends to the edge of lunacy.
This is never a long journey for anyone on the left, of course, but they have arrived at the precipice
with unusual alacrity this time.
Sec'y Ducks Question: What Will You Do If SCOTUS Guts Obamacare? How is the Treasury
Department preparing for the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court may strike down Obamacare
subsidies for people who buy health insurance on the federal exchanges? Treasury Secretary Jack
Lew repeatedly dodged that question on Tuesday, saying only that "we're continuing to implement the
law... as it was written."
who wrote Obamacare tell Supreme Court to reject lawsuit. The congressional Democrats
involved in writing the Affordable Care Act told the Supreme Court on Wednesday [1/28/2015] that they intended
for consumers in all states to be eligible for subsidies, and they argue that the law they drafted reflects
that intention. Opponents have challenged the Obama administration's enforcement of the law, arguing
that it only allows subsidies to be paid in states that set up their own exchanges, but not to customers in
most of the country who use the federal exchange.
House just assuming they'll win Obamacare case at SCOTUS. King v. Burwell, the
court case that will determine if Obamacare's language about federal subsidies and their availability
on exchanges "established by the state", will be heard in oral arguments at the Supreme Court on March 4,
with a decision to come down later this year. The Obama White House is apparently so confident that
they'll win the case that they're not preparing any back-up plan in case the Supreme Court wrecks the
structure of their signature legislation.
Court rejects ObamaCare challenge from doctors' group. The Supreme Court on Monday
[1/12/2015] rejected a 2-year-old legal challenge to a central provision of ObamaCare from a
conservative doctors group. The case, which was led by the Association of American Physicians and
Surgeons, sought to strike down the law's individual mandate, which fines individuals who fail to
purchase health insurance.
To SCOTUS: Do The Right Thing And Ignore The Constitution. If the Supreme Court
dismantles a core provision in Obamacare, America will be plunged into a pre-2010 levels of
dystopia — or worse. If Democrats are forced by the court to follow the law they wrote,
then 36 states that aren't interested in hosting federal "exchanges" would no longer be forced to do
so and, consequently, the American Dream would be shattered. So, needless to say, the pending
Supreme Court challenge over the Affordable Care Act via King v. Burwell is the most
significant decisions since Hobby Lobby or perhaps Citizens United — or whenever the last
time it was the world was going to come tumbling down around us.
SCOTUS decision gutting Obamacare could cause widespread disruptions. One of the big,
looming questions of 2015 is this: Will the Supreme Court really gut Obamacare subsidies in the
three dozen states on the federal exchange, potentially depriving millions of health coverage at a
moment when the law, now heading into its second year, is clearly working as intended? One thing
to watch as we approach the SCOTUS hearings on King v. Burwell this spring is how many people are
newly qualifying for subsidies in those states as this year's enrollment period continues.
States Dare to Make Health-Care Mistakes. The death of Vermont's effort to install
single-payer health care is revealing — and not only for what it says about the
feasibility of such government-run systems in the U.S. It also shows conservatives a way forward if
the Supreme Court voids broad swaths of the Affordable Care Act in 2015. In King v. Burwell,
the court will consider a challenge to the legality of Obamacare subsidies distributed in states using
the federally run health-insurance exchange. The law states the subsidies may be distributed only
through exchanges "established by the states." But the Obama administration has argued for a broader
reading permitting the distribution of subsidies to individuals living in states using the federal exchange.
Ramp from Obamacare. The Supreme Court should rule that the Obama administration has
exceeded its legal authority by providing tax credits for people who buy health insurance on
exchanges run by the federal government. No legislation authorizes those credits. If the Court ends
the illegal credits, though, it will leave millions of Americans without affordable coverage — and
also leave politicians who oppose Obamacare in a bind.
judge says Obama executive action on immigration is unconstitutional. President Barack
Obama's new plan to spare 4.7 million illegal immigrants from the threat of deportation violates the
U.S. Constitution, a federal judge declared on Tuesday, handing down the first legal ruling against the
plan. Judge Arthur Schwab's ruling has no immediate impact, since the Obama administration says there
was no reason for his Western District of Pennsylvania court to address the issue in the case, which
concerns the legal status of 42-year-old Honduran immigrant Elionardo Juarez-Escobar.
judge's surprise ruling finds Obama amnesty orders 'unconstitutional'. Judge Arthur J.
Schwab of the Western District issued an unusual judicial memorandum [12/16/2014] acknowledging that
a president has discretionary powers deciding how to enforce laws. But Judge Schwab said Obama's
executive action immigration policies go far beyond that and establish an entire system for granting
legal protections to wide groups of individuals, illegal immigrants. The judge said Obama's edicts
grant "substantive rights" to illegals.
to lawless Obama's America, hombres! Just when President Obama thought it was safe to
show his face in an American courtroom again, in walks John Wayne in a black robe to deliver one of
the greatest legal beatdowns ever suffered by a sitting president.
judge finds Obama amnesty is unconstitutional. A federal judge Tuesday [12/16/2014]
ruled parts of President Obama's deportation amnesty to be unconstitutional, with a scathing memo
dismantling the White House's legal reasoning and arguing that Mr. Obama tried to steal Congress'
court declares Obama immigration action unconstitutional. Earlier Tuesday [12/16/2014], a federal
court in Pennsylvania declared aspects of President Obama's executive actions on immigration policy unconstitutional.
According to the opinion by Judge Arthur Schwab, the president's policy goes "beyond prosecutorial discretion" in that it
provides a relatively rigid framework for considering applications for deferred action, thus obviating any meaningful
case-by-case determination as prosecutorial discretion requires, and provides substantive rights to applicable individuals.
As a consequence, Schwab concluded, the action exceeds the scope of executive authority.
Supporters Should Be Very Worried, Experts Say. What would happen if the Supreme Court
rules that ObamaCare doesn't allow subsidies through the federal exchange? There's plenty of
speculation, ranging from no big deal to absolute, total catastrophe. An article published on
Wednesday [12/10/2014] in the New England Journal of Medicine tries to answer the question with a
little bit more precision. It's conclusion, however, is that disallowing those subsidies would be a
devastating blow to ObamaCare. The case — King v Burwell — centers on
language in the statute which says that federal tax subsidies meant to offset the cost of ObamaCare
insurance can only be provided through state-run exchanges. The plaintiffs in the case make a
strong argument that the law is pretty clear on this.
Half of Country Now Suing Obama over Immigration. With four additional states joining "a Texas-led
coalition suing the Obama administration over executive action on immigration," almost half of the nation is now
suing the federal government on the issue. Arkansas, Michigan, North Dakota and Oklahoma are the latest to
join the effort, bringing the total to 24 "fighting the order in a federal district court in Brownsville."
at Stake in the Little Sisters of the Poor Case Against Obamacare. For 175 years, the
Little Sisters of the Poor have been inspired by their faith to take care of the elderly poor. But
now the federal government wants them to choose between their faith and their ministry and is pushing hard
in federal court to force them to decide. The stakes couldn't be much higher for people who care
about and enjoy religious liberty.
King vs. Burwell Save Democrats from Obamacare? If you accept that [...] certain
Democrats are beginning to realize that Obamacare is a political albatross that will only worsen
with time ... Will certain Democrats secretly hope that the Supreme Court rules in King v.
Burwell that the text of the law only allows for subsidies on state-run exchanges, and that the
IRS cannot allow subsidies on federal exchanges? That decision would effectively destroy Obamacare.
Suit on Health
Law Puts Focus on Funding Powers. In mounting the latest court challenge to the Affordable Care Act, House Republicans
are focusing on a little-noticed provision of the law that offers financial assistance to low- and moderate-income people.
I'll bet they do. Democrat
Wants Gag Order On Liberal Lawyer Representing GOP In Obamacare Lawsuit. Self-avowed
liberal law professor Jonathan Turley is representing the House GOP in its lawsuit against President
Barack Obama's implementation of Obamacare and at least one House Democrat wants him punished for
it[.] Turley, a George Washington University law professor, is also a frequent media commentator
on political issues. Despite describing himself as a political liberal, he's long been harshly
critical of Obama's use of executive power and said he'd jumped at the chance to represent the House
GOP in the lawsuit against unilateral changes to the Affordable Care Act in its implementation.
for Life Will Appeal HHS Mandate Court Decision to Supreme Court. Father Frank Pavone
objects to the decision on November 14, written by Obama-appointee Judge Cornelia Pillard, in which
the court upheld the Obama administration's most recent "accommodation" for religious employers who
object to being forced by the government to provide free contraception, sterilization procedures,
and abortion-inducing drugs to employees through health insurance plans.
words that could deep-six Obamacare. The most serious challenge to President Obama's
health care law since it survived the Supreme Court by a single vote in 2012 isn't a balky website,
public opinion or the Republican takeover of Congress. It's the Supreme Court — again.
In a case likely to be heard in March and decided in June, the justices will dissect the meaning of
four words on page 95 of the 906-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act —
four words that could render health insurance premiums unaffordable for millions of Americans.
Republicans sue president over Obamacare. House Republicans on Friday announced their
long-anticipated lawsuit to challenge President Obama's unilateral actions on his healthcare law.
The lawsuit contends the president overstepped his legal authority when he acted alone to wave the
Affordable Care Act's employer mandate and the penalties for failing to comply with it. The
lawsuit was filed against the departments of Health and Human Services and the Treasury.
GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama. House Republicans on Friday [11/21/2014] filed a long-awaited
lawsuit accusing President Barack Obama of overstepping his executive authority when implementing
his signature health care law. And though the suit is centered on the Affordable Care Act, the
GOP moved on the legal action the morning after the president announced he will unilaterally grant
temporary relief to millions of undocumented immigrants.
Levin: The Road to Repeal. Exactly what is the significance of King v. Burwell,
the high profile Obamacare tax subsidy case docketed for decision by the Supreme Court in its Term
ending June 30, 2015? Legally, a reversal by the Court will eliminate the authority to pay
subsidies to individuals purchasing health care on the federal exchange, meaning that an estimated
5.4 million people will no longer be eligible to receive a subsidy check averaging $4,700. Taxpayers
will save $25 billion, but otherwise the outcome does not sound of overwhelming policy significance.
to Prepare for Obamacare's Collapse. Several million Americans could find their health
insurance becoming vastly more expensive if the Supreme Court rules against the Obama administration
in a pending case. That's what the court should do [...] but the elected branches of government
need to develop contingency plans to deal with the affected people. The problem is the fault of
the administration and its supporters. Obamacare, their most cherished accomplishment, authorizes
tax credits to help people buy insurance on exchanges established by state governments. Because
political resistance to the law has been longer-lasting and more widespread than advocates anticipated,
however, 36 states didn't establish exchanges.
foundation of lies a warning for new Supreme Court case. A leading architect of
Obamacare admitted that Democrats gamed the bill's budget score and misled the public on the bill's
taxes in order to pass it, proclaiming that "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage" for
Obamacare supporters. It's not news that Obamacare was built on lies. We've known it for years.
But as we enter into a public debate over another Obamacare case at the Supreme Court, it's important to keep
in the front of our minds the willingness of the law's advocates to mislead for what they believe is a good cause.
They Wrote the Law. The Democrats argue that if the Supreme Court insists on the
letter of the law, then the results will be absurd. Of course they will: This is an absurd law, a
Frankenstein's monster sewn together from spare parts gathered from the graveyard of big-government
health-care schemes. The Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act without a single Republican vote
and without Republican input — it says what it says because that is the way they wrote it.
Even if Democratic legislators are not very deft at crafting legislation, it is not the responsibility of
the Supreme Court to bail them out.
Supreme Court Really Might Destroy Obamacare This Time. The Supreme Court is taking up
another Obamacare case — one that could devastate the health care law's coverage
expansion. The justices on Friday agreed to hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a lawsuit
that challenges the insurance subsidies at the heart of the Affordable Care Act. The suit argues
that the subsidies — which roughly 80 percent of Obamacare enrollees received —
should only be available in a handful of states.
Chief Justice Roberts get a do-over? The Supreme Court this week in King v. Burwell acted
swiftly and before completion of lower court appeals on the issue as to whether the language of the Obamacare
statute limits subsidies to those states that have set up their own exchanges.
Words Mean Anything Obamacare Is In Real Trouble. The survival of Obamacare depends on
the ability of government bureaucrats to dole out tax credits and subsidies, but the law stipulates
that all such assistance must be dispensed via exchanges established by the state. Likewise, the
law's employer mandates can only be imposed by state-created exchanges. Oddly enough, however, PPACA
doesn't actually require states to set up exchanges. And, much to the surprise and chagrin of the
Obama administration, 34 states declined to do so. This forced the federal government to
set up exchanges in those states and also spawned the legally dubious IRS edict.
to Supreme Court. The issue of subsidies on the federal exchange has been accepted by
the Supreme Court. [...] The 4th Circuit case was contrary to the initial decision of the D.C.
Circuit in the Halbig case. That panel decision later was vacated when the entire D.C. Circuit
agreed to en banc review. Many observers thought that the lack of a circuit split would cause the
Supreme Court to decline to take the case, but obviously that was wrong.
The New York Times appears to be deeply concerned about the future of Obamacare: What's
at Stake in Supreme Court's Latest Health Care Case. Unlike the Obamacare case the
Supreme Court decided in 2012, the one it took Friday, King v. Burwell, isn't a threat to the entire
Affordable Care Act. But it could be a threat to health insurance that the law has provided to millions
of Americans in 36 states. The law set up tax credits to help Americans afford premiums
in new health insurance marketplaces.
Court will take up Obamacare challenge that threatens to cut off subsidies. The
Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a new challenge to President Barack Obama's health care law that
would threaten federal subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their
health insurance premiums. The justices said they will review a unanimous federal appeals court
ruling that upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits
under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states, regardless of whether they
signed up through their state exchanges or through the federal healthcare site.
surprise, Supreme Court to hear challenge to healthcare subsidies. The Supreme Court
on Friday agreed to take up a new challenge to ObamaCare that Democrats fear could dismantle the
healthcare law. The case, King v. Burwell, rests on whether the federal government can
legally hand out healthcare subsidies in 34 states that have opted out of creating their own
exchanges. About 87 percent of people enrolled in ObamaCare receive the subsidies.
Rules in Favor of Ave Maria School of Law Against HHS Mandate. A federal court has
ruled in favor of Ave Maria School of Law in the case Ave Maria School of Law v. Burwell.
This means that as of now the school is not required to comply with the HHS Contraception mandate
and distribute contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs to its employees. Ave Maria School of Law
is a Catholic law school and was seeking an injunction to delay implementation of the mandate.
and the Language of Law. On Sept. 30, Judge Ronald A. White of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Oklahoma delivered his decision in Pruitt v. Burwell, the third
of four related cases to have received a judgment. The four cases challenge the IRS ruling that
ObamaCare subsidies will be given to policyholders who have purchased health insurance in exchanges
established by the federal government. Like the verdict in Halbig v. Burwell, Judge White
found for the plaintiffs and against the IRS, and he vacated the IRS regulation pending appeal.
The other case to have received a judgment is King v. Burwell, which found for the government.
So we have a 2-1 split. The U.S. Supreme Court must eventually weigh in.
Obamacare Again On
SCOTUS To Do List. The Supreme Court begins a new term today, which means the justices
will soon have to decide whether to hear King v. Burwell, a lawsuit challenging an arbitrary
IRS edict that tax credits and penalties will be issued through federally created Obamacare
exchanges. It is always risky to make predictions about the Court, but it is quite plausible that
the justices will accept this case. Two federal courts, including one in Oklahoma last week, have
already declared the IRS decree unconstitutional and the Roberts Court has demonstrated a marked
aversion for the very kind of bureaucratic lawmaking that provoked this lawsuit.
IRS Obamacare Rule 'Is Arbitrary Capricious, and Abuse of Discretion'. In his
decision, U.S. District Judge Ronald White concluded Tuesday that the IRS rule altering the
Obamacare law and providing billions in subsidies is "arbitrary, capricious and abuse of
discretion": "The court holds that the IRS rule is arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of
discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A), in excess of
summary jurisdiction, authority or limitation, or short of statutory right, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 706(2)(C), or otherwise is an invalidation of the ACA [Affordable Care Act], and is hereby vacated.
The court's order of vacatur is stayed, however, pending resolution of any appeal from this order."
In September 2012, Oklahoma was the first of several states to challenge the legality of an IRS rule that
caused billions in subsidies to be paid out, despite Congress having never authorized those payments.
rules against White House on Affordable Care Act. A federal judge in Oklahoma has
ruled that Obamacare subsidies cannot go to residents of states that are not running their own
insurance exchanges, a second blow to the Obama administration on a issue that threatens a key
element of the health law's coverage expansion. Judge Ronald A. White said that the
administration's decision to allow subsidies to go through either a state-run health insurance
exchange or the federal exchange is an improper and invalid reading of the Affordable Care Act and
must be struck.
says Obama administration can't bail out insurers without Congress. The Department of
Health and Human Services cannot legally bail out the insurance industry for excessive losses
through President Obama's health care law unless the U.S. Congress approves language allowing the
administration to do so, according to a legal opinion released on Tuesday by the Government
Accountability Office. The ruling could end up provoking a showdown between the White House and
Congressional Republicans over Obamacare that has the potential to affect health insurance premiums.
At issue is the "risk corridors" program, which aims to stabilize the insurance market on the new
health insurance exchanges during the early years of Obamacare.
7th Circuit dumps doctors' challenge to IRS enforcement of
Obamacare. A conservative physicians group and a Wisconsin member that had challenged an IRS plan to collect the
penalty from individuals who don't get health insurance under the Affordable Care Act lost again Friday in a federal court.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed a Wisconsin federal judge's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed last
October by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., and Robert T. McQueeney, who treat patients on a cash
basis, and want to prevent everyone from being covered by health insurance.
DC Circuit Court Will
Rehear Obamacare Subsidies Case. The D.C. Circuit Court will hear the court case over the legality of Obamacare
subsidies in the federal exchanges all over again, the court announced Thursday [9/4/2014]. At risk are premium tax
credit subsidies for Obamacare customers using federally-run exchanges. The text of the Affordable Care Act which
authorizes the subsidies states that the funding should go only to customers in exchanges "established by the State,"
leading the plaintiffs in Halbig v. Burwell to argue that subsidies are illegal for federal HealthCare.gov
customers — which account for the vast majority of Obamacare enrollees nationwide.
Court Will Rehear an Obamacare Challenge. The future of Obamacare subsidies in 36 states will be reconsidered
in court — this time in a situation more favorable for the White House. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit announced Thursday [9/4/2014] that it will reconsider a three-judge panel's July decision eliminating insurance
subsidies for coverage bought on the federal exchange.
Could a wording
'glitch' doom Obama's healthcare law? When a federal appeals court ruled last month
that a seemingly arcane wording flaw in the Affordable Care Act should invalidate a central part of
the law, many of those who drafted the statute five years ago reacted with shock and anger. [...]
The judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit based their ruling on
language saying that subsidies would be offered for health policies bought through an "exchange
established by the state." That wording meant only marketplaces established by 14 states, including
California, would qualify, the three-judge panel ruled; 5 million people in 36 states where
consumers used the federal government's exchange should not get subsidies.
challengers to D.C. Circuit: Let Supreme Court decide where subsidies should flow.
Obamacare challengers have asked a federal appeals court to stand down and let the Supreme Court
decide whether the government may give subsidies to people who used the federal health exchange, a
standoff that threatens to upend the health overhaul. The Court of Appeals for the Circuit of the
District of Columbia previously ruled against President Obama in a 2-1 decision that said subsidies
may only flow to health exchanges set up by states, based on a phrase in the Affordable Care Act that
suggests that is what Congress intended. The ruling invalidated an IRS rule that extended subsidies
to exchanges in every state.
in ObamaCare Subsidy Case Appeal to Supreme Court. The plaintiffs in a case
challenging ObamaCare's insurance subsidies on the federal exchange have asked the Supreme Court to
take their case after a circuit-court panel ruled against them. The plaintiffs in the case,
King v. Burwell, argue that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) plainly states that such subsidies,
in the form of refundable tax credits, are available only to taxpayers "covered by a qualified health
plan ... enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the [ACA]."
Taxpayers in states that chose not to establish their own exchanges, therefore, are not eligible for
subsidies, the plaintiffs contend.
Impeach Obama, Censure Him. The House's lawsuit against the White House for altering
Obamacare dozens of times without consulting Congress is fine as far as it goes, but we need to make
more use of the power of censure by Congress. In addition, a lawsuit could take years to wend its
way through the courts and might not even be resolved until Obama leaves office.
appeals ruling that struck down ObamaCare subsidies. The Obama administration on Friday [8/1/2014] appealed the
ruling that some subsidies under ObamaCare are illegal. The Justice Department filed a petition with the full D.C.
Circuit Court asking the judges to review the ruling in Halbig v. Burwell that overturned some of the subsidies
distributed to help people pay for health insurance. The 2-1 ruling dealt a major blow to the healthcare law,
and if allowed to stand could demolish one of the pillars of the Affordable Care Act.
may be headed to Supreme Court — again. The high court has been asked to review a July 22
ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that declared constitutional all federal subsidies granted to enrollees
of the health care system. The losing plaintiff in the case officially appealed the ruling in a petition Thursday [7/31/2014]
to the Supreme Court. The Fourth Circuit ruling contradicted another announced hours earlier by a three-judge
panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that ruled the IRS went too far in extending
subsidies to those who buy insurance through the federally-run exchange, known as HealthCare.gov.
Shows How Leftist Wonks Just Aren't Very Good At Their Jobs. Another day, another liberal wonkblogger
contradicting the government's position in the Halbig case. First we had Jonathan Gruber demonstrating that the
plaintiff's case in Halbig was quite plausible. Then we had Jonathan Gruber demonstrating that the plaintiff's
case in Halbig was quite plausible... again. Then we had Greg Sargent unwittingly demonstrating that the plaintiff's
case in Halbig wasn't only plausible, but quite likely. Today [7/31/2014], thanks to Phil Kerpen of American
Commitment, we have Jonathan Cohn, one of the Left's foremost experts on Obamacare, contradicting himself and demonstrating
that the plaintiff's case in Halbig was plausible.
is an Opportunity for Supreme Court to Rededicate Itself to Rule of Law. True, the
Halbig case, if it makes its way to the Supreme Court, will present an opportunity for Chief Justice
John Roberts to redeem himself from his abominably activist salvation of Obamacare. But more
important, it will be an opportunity for the high court to reaffirm this nation's commitment to the
rule of law. In Halbig v. Burwell, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that under the
Affordable Care Act federal health insurance subsidies are available for policies purchased only on
state exchanges and not those purchased on the federal exchange.
Democrats Lose Their Big Bet on Health Exchanges. Words mean what they say. That's the
basis for the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Halbig v. Burwell
invalidating the Internal Revenue Service regulation approving subsidies for Obamacare consumers in
states with federal health insurance exchanges. The law passed by Congress, Judge Thomas Griffith
explained, provided for subsidies in states with state-created exchanges, but not in states with
federal exchanges. That's factually correct, and under the Constitution, the government can't
spend money not authorized by Congress. This has not prevented Democrats from calling the decision
"judicial activism," which makes as much sense as the claims that the Supreme Court decision overturning
the Obamacare contraception mandate cuts off all access to contraception.
Flip-Flopping Architect of the ACA. Last week, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the Obama
administration has been implementing Obamacare illegally. Days later, a video featuring the law's
chief architect confirmed the court's ruling and raised questions about whether administration
officials knew they were breaking the law all along. Jonathan Gruber is the MIT economist who
helped congressional Democrats write the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2009. He has
been sharply critical of Halbig v. Burwell, a lawsuit alleging the Obama administration is
illegally subsidizing health insurance for 5 million Americans in the 36 states with exchanges
established by the federal government.
Testimony. As Jonathan Gruber will tell you, the MIT economist helped to write ObamaCare and remains
one of its fiercest defenders. So it's no surprise that on Friday [7/25/2014] the Web was full of chatter that
Mr. Gruber had at least twice made public assertions that support the latest legal challenge to the health law.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week in Halbig v. Burwell that the plain language of ObamaCare says
that subsidies for health insurance can only be delivered through state, not federal, exchanges.
Architect Jonathan Gruber Once Again Ties Subsidies to State-Based Exchanges. Did Obamacare architect
Jonathan Gruber make the same mistake twice? A new audio clip finds him once again explaining that Obamacare
subsidies are tied to state health exchanges. A clip of Jonathan Gruber circulated last night in which he states
that Obamacare subsidies are tied to the existence of state exchanges. This statement is extremely problematic
for the law's supporters because it appears to confirm the view of plaintiffs in the Halbig case, i.e. that only
state-exchanges were intended to deliver subsidies.
Architect Argued Years Ago That States Without Exchanges Can't Get Subsidies. One of
Obamacare's authors said in 2012 that states that don't set up their own Obamacare exchanges can't
offer residents subsidies, throwing heavy weight behind the argument that the billions in subsidies to
federally-run exchanges are illegal. Earlier this week two appeals courts heard arguments that
the Affordable Care Act's language doesn't allow for subsidies in federally-run exchanges but answered
the question differently. While the D.C. District Court of Appeals first found that the subsidies
are illegal for the 36 states that didn't create their own exchanges, the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals said otherwise.
Court may not protect Obamacare this time. Are health-care consumers entitled to subsidies if they buy coverage on
insurance exchanges established by the federal government, as they are with insurance from state exchanges? Two federal
appeals courts have reached contradictory conclusions, at least so far.
still haven't learned Obamacare lesson. Memo to Democrats: This is what happens when you pass a
law where you can't fix simple drafting errors. Within hours of each other, two federal courts reached exactly
opposite conclusions Tuesday [7/22/2014] about whether the vague wording of Obamacare allows people to get subsidies
through the federal health insurance exchange. One said, sorry, that's not what the law says. The other
said, sure, they can get the subsidies — the Obama administration has the power to do that.
the Halbig Decision Should Be Taken Seriously. On Tuesday [7/22/2014], the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down the subsidy provisions of the
Affordable Care Act for states that have not implemented their own exchanges. The court found
that the plain wording of the statute made clear that Congress authorized subsidies only in exchanges
established by a state, and that the federal government is not a state. Thus, subsidies are not
authorized in exchanges established by the federal government.
House panel OKs resolution to sue president for Obamacare delays. The Republican-led
House is set to take up a measure next week that authorizes Speaker John A. Boehner to sue President
Obama over how he implemented parts of Obamacare, adding to the many legal squabbles that surround
the health care overhaul this summer. The House Committee on Rules voted 7-4 along party lines
Thursday [7/24/2014] to advance the resolution despite Democrats' complaints that the lawsuit is a "political
stunt" designed to whip up the Republican base ahead of November's midterm elections.
John Roberts Decide a 'State' Is Not a 'State'? On the face of it, this question may
seem absurd. In fact, given any level of reflection, it is absurd. The federal government is not one
of the states. But this absurd question was at the heart of Halbig v. Burwell, decided this week
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and it could soon become a defining issue
in American life. Section 1311 of the Affordable Care Act, the court explained, provided for
"each State" to establish an exchange to sell health insurance. However, the federal government
cannot force a state government to create a health insurance exchange.
in death spiral after federal appeals court strikes down some subsidies. The ruling in
Halbig v. Burwell bars the federal government from handing out taxpayer-funded subsidies to
people who buy ObamaCare plans in nearly two-thirds of the states. Those subsidies took the sting
out of being forced to buy pricey ObamaCare plans. If the ruling sticks, buyers in those states will
have to pay full price, on average a whopping four times the subsidized price they paid this year.
Quadrupling the price would likely trigger a mass exodus out of the plans,causing what the insurance
industry calls a "death spiral." The ruling by the influential appeals court for the District of
Columbia also chastised the Obama administration for rewriting the law to suit its own ends.
appeals panel deals big blow to Obamacare subsidies. In a decision that could blow a
massive hole in President Obama's signature domestic achievement, the court held that people living
in states that relied on the federal government to set up their insurance market exchanges cannot
offer the subsidies considered critical to making coverage affordable. The D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled the administration used an IRS rule to stretch the meaning of the Affordable Care Act,
which said financial aid to to low- and middle-income people should only flow to exchanges
"established by the State." If that means only state-run exchanges, it would cut off
subsidies to two-thirds of the nation.
Obamacare Slowly Succumbs to Its
Birth Defects. The supporters of the ironically titled "Affordable Care Act" are
attempting to downplay their latest legal defeats by pretending that they are disappointing but
inconsequential stumbles in the law's long march toward the pantheon of nanny state entitlements.
These people are whistling past the graveyard. In fact, the president's "signature domestic
achievement" is moribund. It is a congressional crack baby afflicted with multiple organ failures
caused by the Democrat addiction to corrupt bargains and unconstitutional edicts. Yesterday's
[7/22/2014] appeals court ruling against the Obama administration unequivocally confirms that reality.
court strikes major blow to Obamacare. A federal appeals court delivered a serious
setback to President Barack Obama's health care law Tuesday, potentially derailing billions of
dollars in subsidies for many low- and middle-income people who bought policies.
Court Deals Blow to Health Law. President Barack Obama's health care law is snarled
in another big legal battle, with two federal appeals courts issuing contradictory rulings on a key
financing issue within hours of each other Tuesday [7/22/2014].
House To Ignore Court Ruling, Keep Handing Out Obamacare Subsidies. The Obama
administration will continue handing out Obamacare subsidies to federal exchange customers despite a
federal court's ruling Tuesday that the subsidies are illegal. A D.C. Court of Appeals panel
ruled Tuesday morning that customers in the 36 states that didn't establish their own exchange and
use HealthCare.gov instead cannot be given premium tax credits, according to the text of the
Affordable Care Act itself.
Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies
illegal. In a dramatic split decision, two federal appeals panels disagreed Tuesday
[7/22/2014] on the legality of Obamacare subsidies that gave billions of dollars to help 4.7 million
people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov. A panel of the appeals court that covers Washington,
D.C., ruled 2-1 that the subsidies were and are illegal if issued through that federal exchange, as
opposed to one set up by a state. But about two hours later, a Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals panel ruled 3-0 in another case that the subsidies are legal for people who buy plans on
HealthCare.gov, which the federal government operates in 36 states.
appeals court invalidates some ObamaCare subsidies, in blow to health law. Two federal
appeals court rulings put the issue of ObamaCare subsidies in limbo Tuesday [7/22/2014], with one court
invalidating some of them and the other upholding all of them. The first decision came Tuesday
morning from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The
panel, in a major blow to the law, ruled 2-1 that the IRS went too far in extending subsidies to
those who buy insurance through the federally run exchange, known as HealthCare.gov. A separate
federal appeals court — the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — hours later
issued its own ruling on a similar case that upheld the subsidies in their entirety.
Halbig Stands, What Happens to Obamacare? With the D.C. Circuit Court's
decision today that Obamacare, as written, doesn't authorize the provision of subsidies on federal
health-care exchanges — it just does so for those established by states —
residents of 36 states may stop receiving insurance subsidies under the law. President Obama
could well ignore the decision, which he asserts is perfectly legal, but he'll also certainly appeal
it — either to an en banc hearing of the D.C. Circuit Court (more judges than the three
that just heard it) or to the Supreme Court. If the president chooses to ignore the ruling,
we can bet a messy legal battle — and maybe even an impeachment attempt —
Court Strikes Down Obamacare Subsidies in 36 States. A federal court on Tuesday
[7/22/2014] struck down health insurance subsidies for people in the 36 states that did not
set up their own Obamacare exchanges. The ruling "is a repudiation of Obamacare and all
the lawlessness that has come with it," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tweeted shortly after a three-judge
panel in Washington, D.C. issued its ruling in Halbig v. Burwell. While the ruling is
a "significant victory for the American people & rule of law... we must not rest," Cruz added.
v. Burwell Would Free More Than 57 Million Americans From The ACA's Individual & Employer
Mandates. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often described as the
second-highest court in the land, could rule on Halbig v. Burwell as early as tomorrow
[7/22/2014]. Halbig is one of four lawsuits challenging the legality of the
health-insurance subsidies the IRS is dispensing in the 36 states that did not establish a
health-insurance Exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or "ObamaCare," and
thus have Exchanges established by the federal government. Though the PPACA repeatedly states those
subsidies are available only "through an Exchange established by the State," and there are
indications IRS officials knew they did not have the authority to issue subsidies through federal Exchanges,
the IRS is dispensing billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies through federal Exchanges anyway.
in chaos as federal court strikes down tax credits for low-income Americans. The
future of Obamacare was uncertain today after a federal court in Washington, D.C. struck down tax
subsidies for Americans who bought insurance through federally-funded exchanges. Within hours the
same policy was held up by another court, setting up a Supreme Court showdown. The cases revolve
around four words in the Affordable Care Act, which says the tax credits are available to people who
enroll through an exchange 'established by the state.'
Biggest Legal Threat. The legal positions of President Obama's Justice Department have been slapped down
unanimously a remarkable 13 times in the Supreme Court in the last two years. Over and over, even Obama's own
two appointees to the court — Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — have held that the president has
exceeded his authority and violated the separation of powers. This coming week, we could see the second-highest
court in the land rule that the administration broke the law in enforcing a key provision of Obamacare, calling into
question once again Obama's fidelity to the Constitution — and further endangering his signature program.
decision looms in subsidy challenge that could unravel ObamaCare. A few blocks down the street from where
the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, a powerful federal appeals court is preparing
its own decision in a case that could cause serious complications for ObamaCare. The case, Halbig v Sebelius, is a
major legal challenge that cuts to the heart of the Affordable Care Act by going after the legality of massive federal
subsidies and those who benefit from them.
Obamacare As We Know It May Not Survive. Obamacare could take another spin in front of
the Supreme Court — with vastly uncertain consequences. Harvard legal scholar Laurence
H. Tribe warned Tuesday of a "very high risk" that a crucial aspect of Obamacare — its
government subsidies provision — could fall victim to a major legal challenge being
mounted by conservatives. That is why, he also said, that the Supreme Court will almost certainly
get "a second bite of the apple" in determining the fate of President Obama's signature health law,
with uncertain consequences.
Law Professor: 'I Wouldn't Bet' on Obamacare Surviving Next Legal Challenge. President
Obama's old Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, said that he "wouldn't bet the family farm" on
Obamacare's surviving the legal challenges to an IRS rule about who is eligible for subsidies that
are currently working their way through the federal courts. "I don't have a crystal ball," Tribe
told the Fiscal Times. "But I wouldn't bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that
preserves Obamacare." The law's latest legal problem is that, as written, people who enroll in
Obamacare through the federal exchange aren't eligible for subsidies.
Hobby Lobby — This Case Could Wreck Obamacare. A federal appeals court
might be on the verge of blowing a massive hole in the foundation of Obamacare. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is expected to rule any day now in a lawsuit that aims to block the law's
insurance subsidies in more than half the country. If the challengers ultimately prevail, the
Affordable Care Act's complex framework could begin to unravel as millions of people lose financial
assistance. For now, the stakes are a lot higher than the odds of success — challenges
to the insurance subsidies have a 0-2 record in federal courts. But the pending D.C. Circuit ruling
may be the one to break that streak, according to legal experts on both sides of the issue.
ready for an even bigger threat to Obamacare. Now that the Supreme Court has issued
its ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, the legal fight over the Affordable Care Act will shift a few
blocks away to another Washington courtroom, where a far more fundamental challenge to Obamacare is
about to be decided by the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Indeed, if Hobby
Lobby will create complications for Obamacare, Halbig vs. Burwell could trigger a full cardiac arrest.
Court issues long-awaited ruling in birth-control dispute. The administration cannot
force closely held private corporations to pay for contraception in their health insurance plans if
it violates their religious beliefs, a divided Supreme Court ruled Monday, dealing a political and
logistical setback to President Obama's signature law.
Obama's Hobby. In the latest
stinging First Amendment brushback to President Obama, the Supreme Court on Monday [6/30/2014] held the
contraceptive mandate unlawful as applied to companies such as Hobby Lobby. Mark Rienzi, the
Becket Fund lawyer who represented Hobby Lobby: "The Court confirmed that Americans don't give up
their religious freedom when they open a family business." Contrary to the hysterica (e.g., the
White House press secretary's claim the ruling "jeopardizes the health of women") the decision does
not limit access to contraceptives. All it means is that employees cannot demand they be
provided — free — by family businesses with religious objections.
the Legislative Roots of Obamacare Overturn the Law? The legal battle over the
Affordable Care Act continues, as a challenge to the healthcare reform law aims to nullify it by
arguing that any taxes imposed by the law originated in the wrong place. Sissel v. United
States Department of Health and Human Services was filed in the Washington D.C. District
Federal Court — a traditional stepping-stone to the U.S. Supreme Court — by
the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) on behalf of Matt Sissel, an Iowa artist and small-business
owner. Sissel, an Iraq war veteran, does not have or want health insurance, preferring to use the
money to invest in his business.
Unique Challenge to ObamaCare Mandate. The MRC contends that under ACA rules it has
self-certified as a religious organization and is therefore exempt from the mandate. The MRC is the
first organization that has asked the court to affirm its "self-certification." For nearly three
decades, the MRC has been the nation's premier defender of pro-life views and Judeo-Christian values
from attacks by the liberal media. Bozell and other employees of the MRC practice and live by
Judeo-Christian values, and believe abortion, whether through the actions of an abortionist or
a drug, is the taking of innocent human life.
bid to topple Obamacare in court. The Affordable Care Act is back at center stage in the courts on Thursday [5/8/2014] with
yet another legal challenge that aims to derail President Obama's massive health care reform law. Rather than attacking the
individual mandate or the so-called contraceptive mandate, this lawsuit challenges a legislative maneuver used by Senate majority
leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada to pass the bill five years ago. The little-noticed legal battle is being waged by a
conservative public interest law group, the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF). It seeks to enforce a constitutional command:
"All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."
Obamacare's doom. If the president wants to
witness a refutation of his assertion that the survival of the Affordable Care Act is assured, come
Thursday he should stroll the 13 blocks from his office to the nation's second-most important court,
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. There he can hear an argument involving yet another constitutional
provision that evidently has escaped his notice. It is the origination clause, which says:
"All bills for raising reveornue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may
propose or concur with amendments as on other bills."
How the ACA
Could Collapse. Some time in the coming months, the Supreme Court will hand down its opinion
in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, the case of the retailer that claims that its religious freedom or that
of its employees is violated by contraceptive coverage required as part of the Affordable Care Act.
The attitude of the health-care act's supporters toward such cases is irritation. How dare a little
religious case trip up the mighty Affordable Care Act and jeopardize the ACA's establishment as permanent
law of the land? Cases involving religious details, however, do have a way of stopping big social
legislation, and not only because they violate the principles of the religious denominations involved.
Says Congressional Staff a Roadblock in Getting Support for Obamacare Lawsuit. A
Wisconsin senator said he felt some staff of GOP House members were standing in the way of getting
more support for his lawsuit against President Obama's executive overreach. On Monday
[4/21/2014], Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) filed an answer to the government's motion to dismiss
his lawsuit over the Obama administration's special Obamacare treatment of Congress and its
staff. "The Office of Personnel Management's rule restoring tax preferred congressional
health care subsidies that the Affordable Care Act eliminated reflects a stunning disregard
for the law. On Jan. 6, 2014, I filed suit to overturn this executive overreach and
uphold the rule of law. This is just one example of the more than 20 unilateral changes
made by the president to his own signature piece of legislation, but it was the one opportunity
where I believe I had standing to challenge," he said in a statement. "The administration
does not want this case to have its day in court, and as a result, asked the court on March 17
to dismiss my case due to lack of standing."
Republican lawmakers put aside differences for lawsuit challenging legality of Obamacare.
Thirty-eight Republican lawmakers, including such unlikely bedfellows as John McCain of Arizona and Ted
Cruz of Texas, have joined to support a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Affordable Care Act and
accusing the president of repeatedly ignoring the law he signed for political reasons. The lawmakers
have signed onto a legal brief in support of a lawsuit filed by Sen. Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin Republican
who is asking a federal court to overturn Obamacare's special treatment for members of Congress and their
staffs. "The unlawful executive action at issue in this case is not an isolated incident," the brief
states. "Rather, it is part of an ongoing campaign by the executive branch to rewrite the Affordable
Care Act on a wholesale basis."
Legal Challenge That Could Torpedo Obamacare. While the Supreme Court considers one
challenge to a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a federal appeals court located just
blocks away is contemplating a separate challenge that could have much more dire consequences for
the future of the law. "What you're asking for is to destroy the individual mandate, which guts
the statute," Judge Harry T. Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said
to an attorney representing the challengers during a hearing on March 25. The case —
Halbig vs. Sebelius — was heard by Edwards and two other judges and they are expected to
rule in the coming months.
ObamaCare a Law? Coming in the week the White House wheeled out its 38th rewrite of the law,
Halbig v. Sebelius is even more important for the contours of executive power and the rule of law.
The case asks whether the Affordable Care Act, which limits insurance subsidies to "an Exchange established by
the State," also authorizes subsidies for the 36 exchanges established by the federal government. The
courts tend to give the executive branch deference in interpreting ambiguous statutes, but here the
Administration is asking the court to declare that the statute unambiguously means the opposite of what
the plain language says.
time for White House to start sweating over legal challenge to Obamacare subsidies. As the
U.S. Supreme Court weighed the constitutionality of a contraception coverage mandate Tuesday morning, a
federal appeals court heard a separate legal challenge that could have much more sweeping implications for
the future of President Obama's health care law. And if the oral arguments before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit are any indication, it's time for the White House to start sweating over a
lawsuit that up until now has flown relatively below the radar.
Circuit to Decide Whether Obama Administration Can Rewrite Laws. On Tuesday the a [sic] three
judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will be hearing Halbig v. Sebelius, one of the more important
legal challenges to ObamaCare's legally problematic implementation. What the plaintiffs are asking is
pretty straightforward — they want the judges to direct the Obama Administration to faithfully execute the
plain language of the statute that Congress passed and the president signed.
sound ready to reject contraceptives mandate under Obamacare. The Supreme Court's
conservative justices sharply criticized part of President Obama's healthcare law Tuesday [3/25/2014],
suggesting they will rule later this year that requiring Christian-owned corporations to offer their
employees contraceptives coverage violates the freedom of religion. "Your reasoning would
permit requiring profit-making corporations to pay for abortions," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who defended the contraceptives provision of the Affordable
Legal Challenge. A defining feature of President Obama's second term is his willfulness in defying
limits on executive power to suit his political goals, and no more so than with the Affordable Care Act. The
judiciary is the last check on those abuses, and this week it will have another opportunity to vindicate the rule of
law. On Tuesday the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear one of the more important legal challenges to
ObamaCare's lawless implementation. Unlike the challenge to the individual insurance mandate, Halbig v.
Sebelius involves no great questions of constitutional interpretation. The plaintiffs are merely asking
the judges to tell the Administration to faithfully execute the plain language of the statute that Congress passed
and President Obama signed.
Court Deeply Skeptical of Obamacare 'Abortion Mandate'. Several justices sharply questioned Obamacare's
"abortion mandate" today [3/25/2014] at the Supreme Court, and five justices — a majority of the court —
appeared deeply skeptical of the controversial regulation at issue. Chief Justice John Roberts — who turned
out to be the swing vote in Obamacare's first foray at the Court — expressed strong disagreement with several of
the Obama administration's arguments about legal protections for religious companies facing a mandate to provide
contraceptives against their beliefs.
Sects and Drugs.
It is likely to be another three months before the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether the government is obliged to
grant a religious exemption from ObamaCare's birth-control mandate to companies whose owners object to it on religious
grounds. Tomorrow the justices hear oral arguments in the two cases that raise that question, Sebelius v. Hobby
Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius. But already some on the left think they've
caught Justice Antonin Scalia in a contradiction. They haven't.
Doctor sues to stop Obamacare executive orders — and might win. Larry Kawa, an orthodontist in South Florida,
is suing to stop Obama from implementing executive orders without the approval of Congress — and he might win. ...] Too
often, citizens see Congress and the President do something outrageous, but feel powerless to stop it. Kawa's case proves that we're
not — and it's time for more of us to take action.
Seattle Children's Hospital Sues
State over 'False Promise' in Obamacare. The Seattle Children's Hospital is suing Washington state's insurance commissioner over a
"failure to ensure adequate network coverage" in the insurance exchanges established as part of the Affordable Care Act. "We're seeing
denials in care, disruptions in care. We're seeing a great deal of confusion and, at times, anger and frustration on the part of these
families who bought insurance thinking that their children would be covered," a doctor with the hospital said. "And, in fact, it's a
Supreme Court schedules hearing
on birth control mandate. The Supreme Court has scheduled the argument on the so-called contraceptive mandate in the Obamacare
law for Tuesday, March 25. That's when the court will hear the challenges brought by two businesses whose owners say providing
contraceptive care would violate their religious beliefs.
GOP senator sues over Obamacare subsidies
for Congress. Sen. Ron Johnson said Monday he will ask the courts to make sure that Congress is treated the same way regular Americans are
treated in the Obamacare marketplace, even if it means taking away his colleagues' health care subsidies, because the financial aid is not in the Obamacare
law they passed in 2010 and forces taxpayers to pay for part of lawmakers' premiums.
Senator Ron Johnson: I'm Suing Over ObamaCare Exemptions for
Congress. On Monday, Jan. 6, I am filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to make Congress live
by the letter of the health-care law it imposed on the rest of America. By arranging for me and other members of Congress and their staffs to receive
benefits intentionally ruled out by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the administration has exceeded its legal authority.
Sen. Johnson files lawsuit to
eliminate ObamaCare subsidy for Congress. Sen. Ron Johnson told Fox News' Megyn Kelly Monday he decided to sue the Obama administration over the
subsidy for lawmakers in the president's health care law because it is unfair to give members of Congress special treatment. Johnson, R-Wis., said the
subsidy creates a double standard that favors members of Congress and their staff over other Americans, and should be eliminated.
Sen. Johnson will go to court to challenge Obamacare subsidies for
Congress. Under the health care law, members of Congress and their employees were kicked off their federal health plan and forced to buy
insurance through an Obamacare exchange. But unlike other Americans going through the exchanges, they will receive federal subsidies to pay for
coverage, regardless of their income.
Conference Announces Georgia Obamacare Nullification Bill. In response to a citizen petition of 34,000 signatures, four Georgia
lawmakers have drafted HB 707 to nullify the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Representatives Jason Spencer, David
Stover, Michael Caldwell and Scot Turner held a press conference on Dec. 16  to discuss the bill and request support.
Watch Asks Court to Invalidate Unconstitutional Obamacare Power Grab. [O]ur out of control president recently rewrote Obamacare for the
14th time by eviscerating, through sheer fiat, the individual mandate. The disruption will be massive. Americans who followed the law
will be made once again into suckers, and Establishment DC will tsk-tsk. Congressional Democrats are stricken by their Obamacare disaster,
so they do nothing in the face of Obama's acting on as a "one-man Congress."
All too soon, ObamaCare will give
us 'Standing'. Despite all the weeping and wailing on every media outlet, ObamaCare has not given us "standing" for the obvious
reason that it has not actually affected anyone yet. All those insurance cancellations take effect some time in 2014. All
those additional costs will be felt starting in 2014 and escalating from there. All that care denied or deferred will happen
next year and beyond.
has shown how a future GOP president can gut Obamacare. Having watched President Obama and Secretary of Health and
Human Services Kathleen Sebelius over the past several months unilaterally alter or outright ignore major portions of the law,
I now believe that a future Republican president would have greater latitude to gut Obamacare than I once thought possible.
Notre Dame re-files
ObamaCare lawsuit. The University of Notre Dame on Tuesday refiled a lawsuit contesting the controversial birth control mandate under
ObamaCare. The school said it believes the requirement that it provide its employees birth control as part of their insurance coverage impinges
on its religious beliefs and that efforts by the Obama administration to find a solution would not resolve the issue.
ObamaCare's Next Legal Challenge. As
millions of Americans see their health-insurance premiums increase, have their coverage dropped as a result of the Affordable Care Act, and are
unable to use the federal exchange, Oklahoma has sued the Obama administration. The Sooner State and several others are trying to stop the
government from imposing tax penalties on certain states, businesses and individuals in defiance of the law.
Clause III: ObamaCare's a Good Amendment to Die Hard. In June 2013, Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia dismissed the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)'s case that ObamaCare violates the Constitution's Origination Clause. This clause
reads, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on
other Bills." PLF's lawsuit alleged that ObamaCare violates the Origination Clause's first half because the Senate and not the House
originated ObamaCare, a bill that raises revenue by billions of dollars.
Nuclear Option 'Greatly
Eroded' Graham's Leverage to Get Benghazi Answers. "President Obama is committed to protecting Obamacare, his signature achievement,
regardless of the damage done to millions of Americans," he continued. "He is even willing to throw the judiciary into chaos if necessary.
Any American who wants to bring a legal challenge to the thousands of Obamacare rules and regulations lost big today."
Dems reveal 2014 strategy: Smash and
grab. With Democrats poised to lose control of the Senate, this could be a very big deal. With new regulations set to
ban more policies and the prospect of millions of Americans being dumped from their employer-based health insurance, next fall promises to be
a painful season for ObamaCare implementation. But by delaying the start of the enrollment season, the White House may be able to push
some of the outrage past Election Day and perhaps spare vulnerable Democrats.
Obamacare's Fifth Amendment Problem.
[A]t the very least a citizen has a right to defend their interests. But what if a citizen's defense is that compliance with the state's legal
mandate is impossible? Interestingly, that is a not a novel legal question. In a number of contexts, the Supreme Court and lower federal
courts have raised due process concerns in the face of impossibility, especially state-created impossibility.
Fed appeal panel says
Citizens United might end Obamacare's HHS mandate. Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that bolstered political speech against
campaign finance reform limitations, may also mean trouble for Obamacare's contraception coverage mandate, according to the second-highest court in the
country. Attorneys for Francis and Philip Gilardi argued that the Gilardis should not be required to provide contraception to their employees because
it violates their religious beliefs. The Gilardis own Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics in Ohio and are devout Catholics. They argued that
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects them from having to comply with the mandate, promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services.
A Second Federal Court Green-Lights Lawsuit
Against Obamacare. A second federal judge Thursday [10/31/2013] has ruled a lawsuit that challenges a major IRS Obamacare regulation
could proceed despite the government's objections. A ruling by a judge in Richmond today mirrored that of a federal judge in the District of
Columbia last week. The judge denied plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, he ordered briefs filed by the first week of December,
which would allow him to issue a decision by the end of the year.
ObamaCare Is Not Settled
Law — It's Still In Court. [Scroll down] But no law is settled in our system [...] and that includes ObamaCare.
Even as Washington debates delaying implementation of the individual mandate for a year, a U.S. district court has refused to dismiss a legal
challenge to the Democrats' reform. This is not some petty complaint but a sober legal issue that "has the potential to sink ObamaCare,"
Cato Institute health policy analyst Michael Cannon said this week in the Los Angeles Times. "It could make the current website
problems seem minor by comparison," he said.
How the Court Case
Against Obamacare Subsidies Stacks Up. Last week, the most important case that you've never heard of survived its first legal hurdle.
Judge Paul Friedman of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that plaintiffs had standing to advance a broadside attack on
the subsidy system at the heart of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, colloquially known as Obamacare.
More legal trouble for Affordable Care Act.
If computer glitches are not enough of a problem, President Obama's healthcare law also has a legal glitch that critics say could cause it to unravel in
more than half the nation. The Affordable Care Act proposes to make health insurance affordable to millions of low-income Americans by offering them
tax credits to help cover the cost. To receive the credit, the law twice says they must buy insurance "through an exchange established by the state."
Obamacare site could mean legal
fights. If the Obamacare enrollment website seems like a tangled mess, just wait for the lawsuits. The potential for a morass of litigation over who's
responsible for the problems that have plagued the rollout of President Barack Obama's signature health care law is significant, government procurement experts say.
Federal judge suddenly
green-lights lawsuit that could stop Obamacare in its tracks. A federal judge on Tuesday [10/22/2013] refused to dismiss a case that could fatally cripple
the Obamacare health insurance law. The Affordable Care Act forbids the federal government from enforcing the law in any state that opted out of setting up its own
health care exchange, according to a group of small businesses whose lawsuit got a key hearing Monday in federal court.
The Suit Against Obamacare Subsidies Could Be
Very Bad for Obamacare. On Tuesday [10/22/2013] a federal judge denied a request from the Justice Department to dismiss a lawsuit aiming to block health care
subsidies in states not running their own healthcare exchange sites. Put another way, if the plaintiffs in Halbig v. Sebelius win this case, low- and
middle-income individuals in 34 states won't get subsidized health care. The only good news for people expecting those subsidies is that the judge, U.S.
District Judge Paul Friedman, decided not to block the subsidies while the case moves forward.
Federal judge set to rule on Obamacare subsidies
quandary. A federal judge will decide Tuesday on a case that could blow a major hole through the Obamacare exchanges when he rules on whether the government
can dole out tax credits to Americans whose states declined to run their own Affordable Care Act insurance markets. U.S. District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman
heard oral arguments Monday [10/21/2013] and said he would rule Tuesday morning on the challenge by seven plaintiffs, who want an injunction from the rule that extends
credits to all of the exchanges. He will also rule on the government's attempt to kill the lawsuit.
ObamaCare's Original Sin. Democrats tell us that ObamaCare is "the law of
the land," and that the Supreme Court declared it constitutional, and that we should get used to it — it's here to stay. Actually, the Court found ObamaCare
unconstitutional on two counts, but let it pass anyway. The problem for defenders of ObamaCare is that its court challenges just keep coming. One place to
check up on them is the website Health Care Lawsuits.
IRS Sued Because Obama Amended
Obamacare Unconstitutionally. Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, sued the IRS and the Treasury Department because Barack Obama
unlawfully amended Obamacare without Congress. That caused harm to Dr. Kawa who has 70 employees and made financial expenditures to meet the
employer mandate. There are numerous other companies across the USA that did the same. Obamacare has already caused millions of job losses
nationwide. More are anticipated. The majority of Americans have opposed Obamacare because it costs more and has inferior health care.
Delay of ObamCare's employer
mandate draws legal challenge. The Obama administration broke the law when officials decided to delay a crucial provision of the president's
signature healthcare law, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday [10/1/2013] in federal court. The lawsuit, filed by the conservative group Judicial
Watch on behalf of an orthodontist from Florida, seeks to block a one-year delay of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) employer mandate.
Republicans: Take ObamaCare to Court. Republicans shouldn't defund ObamaCare.
They should insist it be implemented to the letter of the law — and file a lawsuit in court to do just that.
Supreme Court to Consider New Obamacare
Case. Obamacare is before the U.S. Supreme Court again. On Thursday [9/19/2013], Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) lawyers filed the
first viable petition for Supreme Court review involving Kathleen Sebelius' HHS Mandate, which requires employers to provide abortion-related insurance
coverage, even if those employers have a religious objection to abortion. Section 1001 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare) requires
all large employers to offer "preventive services" to their employees or face enormous financial penalties.
challenges could tear down major pieces of ObamaCare. President Obama's healthcare law is under attack in the
courts even as the administration sprints toward full implementation. Despite surviving a stiff challenge at the Supreme
Court last year, some of the law's biggest provisions remain at risk from legal challenges.
Lawsuit over health care
tax could kill 'Obamacare'. "Obamacare" looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system
could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law. A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the
Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of
the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.
contraceptive mandate for Mich. firm. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff ruled Sunday [12/30/2012] in favor of Tom Monaghan and
his Domino's Farms Corp., near Ann Arbor. Monaghan, a devout Roman Catholic, says contraception isn't health care but a "gravely immoral"
MSM Gives Us the Mushroom Treatment on HHS Mandate.
The most recent victory against HHS and its egregious anti-conscience mandate came last Friday, when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an
injunction preventing the government from enforcing the mandate against an Illinois company called Korte & Luitjohan Contractors. And it
delivers a potentially deadly blow to the administration's most pernicious argument — that secular, for–profit employers are not entitled
to the same First Amendment protections enjoyed by strictly religious institutions like churches. The American Center for Law and Justice
(ACLJ), which represents Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, also represents a company called American Pulverizer.
Two More Legal
Victories For Opponents Of Obamacare Contraception Mandate. You won't hear much about it from the "news" media, which will focus on
the Supreme Court's rejection of a long-shot injunction request by Hobby Lobby, but the opponents of ObamaCare's contraception mandate are stacking
up victories in the courts. In addition to winning three injunctions against the government since last summer, the opponents of the HHS mandate
had big wins in New York and Washington, D.C. just this month.
dead on arrival in 2013, part 1. Both sides of the Obamacare controversy requested Judge Roger Vinson (U.S. District Court for Northern
Florida) to address the legislative history of the Act. The Court found that the bill originated in the U.S. Senate. See Florida
v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. F. Supp.2d-, 2011 WL285683 (N.D. Fla.2011) which documents that the House of Representatives were
not amending a Senate Bill, but instead found the "Act" to have originated in the Senate. That distinctly violates Article 1, Section 7
of the U. S. Constitution rendering the "Act" "null and void."
Domino's Founder Files Lawsuit Challenging HHS Mandate.
Tom Monaghan, founder and former owner of Domino's Pizza, is the latest business owner to file a lawsuit challenging Obamacare's Health and Human Services (HHS)
mandate requiring employers to cover abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization as "preventive services" in their health care plans.
The Opening for a Fresh ObamaCare Challenge.
ObamaCare is being implemented, having been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in June in a series of cases now known as
National Federation of Independent Business v. HHS. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the court took a law
that was flawed but potentially workable and transformed it into one that is almost certainly unworkable. More important, the
justices also may have created new and fatal constitutional problems.
New York Judge Slaps
Down Obama Justice Department. The Obama administration has been consistently arguing, since announcing a year's grace period for some
religious organizations to figure out how to violate their consciences and obey the HHS mandate, that the controversy over religious freedom and the
mandate is over and the Catholics are happy. That, as has been pointed out here before, ignores all the lawsuits pending. And that they
are not just from Catholics.
Supreme Court revives Christian college's Obamacare
challenge. The Supreme Court has revived a Christian college's challenge to Obamacare. Monday [11/26/2012], the High Court granted a petition for
rehearing of Liberty University's challenge to President Barack Obama's signature health care legislation, ordering the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond,
Va., to take the case.
Thirty-three and Counting. Two Texas universities launched a lawsuit
Tuesday [10/9/2012] against the Health and Human Services' contraception mandate, the Becket Fund announced. East Texas Baptist University and
Houston Baptist University joined a growing number of religious institutions objecting to Obamacare's mandates, bringing the number of suits against
the mandate up to 33.
Administration's Argument For Obamacare Makes No Sense. Next week, a three-judge panel from
the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals — two Clinton appointees and one nominated by President
George H.W. Bush — will hear oral arguments in the multi-state lawsuit challenging the
constitutionality of Obamacare.
Taking the Individual Mandate Off Life Support.
This week, the latest challenge to Obamacare, and its individual mandate to purchase health insurance, was heard
before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. Similar appeals cases are due to be heard next month
in Cincinnati and Atlanta. Already two federal judges have declared the mandate unconstitutional and
beyond the powers of Congress to enact. Regardless of how these courts and the Supreme Court rule
(when it eventually makes it to the highest court) on these arguments, it's time to get rid of the unworkable,
unenforceable, and unsustainable mandate.
Right's new weapon: Constitutional
force. The federal lawsuits against last year's health care overhaul were greeted with
eye-rolling and snickers from many conventional legal scholars. Nobody's laughing now.
Effect of the 'Shellacking' on the Florida Obamacare Lawsuit. Judge Roger Vinson, the federal judge
in the lawsuit filed in Florida contesting the constitutionality of Obamacare, issued an order today allowing
six more states to join the litigation: Ohio, Kansas, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Maine, and Iowa. According
to his order, all of these states are "represented by Attorneys General and/or Governors who have just recently
taken office following the November 2010 elections." The change in political control of numerous
states — like the complete takeover of state government by Republicans in Wisconsin —
has made an obvious difference in the fight to overturn Obamacare.
Obamacare and the Broccoli
Mandate. [Scroll down] Likewise, we "can't just leave it up" to the patients to decide for
themselves if they should buy health insurance. Indeed, according to the Obama administration, there is
something sinister in the very suggestion that we must allow them to do so. In a recent editorial
published in the Washington Post under the names of Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius
and Attorney General Eric Holder, we are told that the twenty odd lawsuits challenging the right of Congress to
impose the individual mandate are "troubling." Why are they so troubling? "We saw similar
challenges to laws that created Social Security and established new civil rights protections. Those
challenges ultimately failed, and so will this one."
Amicus Motion in Obamacare
Litigation. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is representing Governors Tim Pawlenty
(R, Minn.) and Donald Carcieri (R, Rhode Island) seeking permission to file an amicus brief in Florida's
lawsuit challenging Obamacare. The amicus motion includes a chart by the U.S. Congress Joint Economic
Committee depicting the incredibly convoluted regulatory morass posed by the President's healthcare plan.
Barack the Barbarian. The Obama
administration has been able to inflict a great deal of damage to the nation and, if it was an invading army,
Americans would have taken up arms long ago against it. They may have to form militias to protect themselves
along the nation's southern border while the administration sues Arizona and does little to stem the flow of illegal
aliens and an invasion of narco-warriors. Meanwhile, half the States are suing the federal government supporting
Arizona and, of course, in opposition to Obamacare.
the Gloves Off: Is the Health Care Bill Constitutional? [Scroll down] Four lawsuits in
four different states have been launched challenging Obamacare's constitutionality — in California,
Michigan, Virginia, and Florida — according to the panel's moderator, David Stras, of the Minnesota
Supreme Court. So far, the California and Michigan cases have been thrown out. The Virginia case is
pending. In Florida, twenty other states have latched on to the case, which has just survived a motion to
dismiss. Which arguments the courts will address in that suit remain to be seen.
Our Choices. Obamacare is under siege in the courts. Monday, federal Judge Henry Hudson
announced that he'd rule on Virginia's constitutional challenge to the health law before year's end. That
on the heels of another federal ruling, by Judge Roger Vinson, that 20 states and the National Federation
of Independent Businesses can proceed in a separate joint action to overturn key provisions in the president's
Federal Judge Advances 20-State Obamacare Challenge.
A federal judge has allowed the 20-state challenge to Obamacare to go forward ruling against the Obama Justice
Department challenge in a motion to dismiss. Rep. Tom Price, M.D. (R-Ga.), chairman of the Republican
Study Committee, said this is a win for the Constitution.
Judge disses Dems' 'Alice in Wonderland' health
defense. A federal judge in Florida on Thursday [10/14/2010] said he will allow some of the lawsuit
challenging the constitutionality of the health care law to proceed — and criticized Democrats for
making an "Alice in Wonderland" argument to defend the law. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson allowed
two major counts to proceed: the states' challenge to the controversial requirement that nearly all
Americans buy insurance and a required expansion of the Medicaid program.
Health Care Lawsuits: Across the country, Americans
are fighting against the new health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). On
this site, you'll find a list of the challenges that are currently moving through our court system, which you
can click on to get more information. ... More than 30 cases have been filed challenging Obama's health
care law, with 28 states as Plaintiffs.
Lawsuit on Obama health
plan likely going to trial. A federal judge said Tuesday [9/14/2010] he will likely dismiss only
parts of a lawsuit by 20 states challenging the Obama administration's health care overhaul as unconstitutional,
though he didn't specifically say what portions.
care battle hits Pensacola courtroom. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said he will decide before
Oct. 14 whether to dismiss all or portions of a lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act. ... Vinson
said he would likely dismiss several of the counts alleged in the challenge to the law, but would allow the
lawsuit to proceed under at least one count. The judge did not say which portions of the bill will be
upheld and which he will strike down.
the Constitution — An Update. Last November, a reporter asked House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi if it was constitutional for Congress to require Americans to buy health insurance. Ms. Pelosi
responded, "Are you serious?" On Monday [8/2/2010], U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson got serious. He denied
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the state of
Virginia challenging the new health law. His ruling stated that it is far from certain Congress has
the authority to compel Americans to buy insurance and penalize those who don't.
Federal judge denies Holder request to dismiss Obamacare constitutionality
challenge. Judge Henry Hudson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia today [8/2/2010] denied the motion by the U.S. Department of Justice that Virginia's challenge of
the constitutionality of Obamacare be dismissed. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the
challenge shortly after Congress completed action on the controversial measure that includes a provision
requiring every American to purchase a government-approved health insurance program.
Fight Back Against Federal Tyranny and Abuse. These separate challenges showcase the
discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious nature of this horrendous law. One plaintiff alleges,
in part, that she will be denied equal protection of the law, as she, along with citizens in 49 states,
will lose access to Medicare Advantage, while certain Florida citizens will continue to enjoy it —
for the sole reason that Obama needed Florida votes to get the bill passed.
ObamaCare Headed for a Supreme Court Smackdown? Conservatives and Tea Partiers
despondent over the fact that liberal Democrats just passed a massive encroachment on our
liberties over their massive protests should take hope. James Madison saw this coming,
and his forethought will give opponents of ObamaCare one last shot at killing it. In
Federalist #10, Madison wrote "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." (Boy,
did he ever get THAT right.) Knowing that the nation's future leaders would include usurpers
and potential tyrants, Madison sought a way to preserve individual liberty despite their efforts.
U.S. states plan lawsuits against
health reforms. Republican attorneys general in at least 12 U.S. states warned on Monday [3/22/2010]
that lawsuits will be filed to stop the federal government's healthcare reform bill from encroaching
on states' sovereignty. The lawsuits were announced hours after the U.S. House of Representatives
gave final approval on Sunday night to a sweeping overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare
system, President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
Health Care Legislation: Here Come the
Lawsuits. The American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative civil liberties group,
says it is preparing to file a federal lawsuit challenging the "flawed" health care package that passed
the House 219-212 on Sunday night.
learn to love Obamacare, or sue to stop it. Democratic exultation at the passage of the
Senate version of President Obama's health plan sounded a bit hollow. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
called the bill passed Sunday night the "reform the American people want." Like the president, she
assumes that the only reason people reject liberal policies is because fear and ignorance produce bitter
resistance to change. What Pelosi meant was: "This is the reform that Americans would want if
only they knew better."
White House Not Worried About States' Constitutional
Challenge to Health Care. The attorneys-general of Virginia, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington all have announced their intent
to file legal challenges as soon as the president signs the $1 trillion package that changes the way
insurance companies do business.
Four Michigan Residents Sue to Get out of Federalized
Health Care. The Thomas More Law Center has joined the slew of legal action sparked by the passage of
President Barack Obama's health care legislation. The Ann Arbor-based conservative law firm filed a federal
lawsuit Tuesday [3/23/2010] challenging the constitutionality of federalized health care in the Federal District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Mandate: The Moral Equivalent Of War. So far 14 states have filed suit challenging
new health care law. Most are stressing the individual mandate requiring people to get coverage or
face fines, penalties and the IRS' wrath. It's unclear how far this challenge will go.
The Supreme Court and
FDR's Power-Grab. How great a chance do we have to overthrow ObamaCare in the courts? To
answer that question, we need to look into that bleak pit of falsehood and mendacity that America's left would
like us to ignore at all costs: the historical record. We need to look at the original effort to
nationalize the American economy, the one attempted by Obama's model, Franklin D. Roosevelt, by means of
the New Deal.
may weigh coverage mandate. The same Supreme Court justices whom President Obama blasted during
his State of the Union address this year may ultimately decide the fate of his crowning achievement as more
than a dozen states have called on the courts to strike down the health insurance mandate of Democrats'
health care overhaul — a move that would threaten the entire law.
AG won't join health suit. Kansas Attorney General Steve Six announced Friday [4/2/2010] that
he would not join a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new healthcare law. Six, a Democrat,
had been urged by Republican lawmakers to sign onto the suit, but said it was unlikely to succeed.
States Need to Protect
Us from ObamaCare. [Scroll down] It should be painfully obvious that the current reforms
are not intended to provide additional access; "ObamaCare quality" will become an oxymoron. The financial
demise of hospitals and insurance companies is likely [to] take less than three years, making them eligible for
"bailouts." Surely we have learned by now that any move to control a system, while termed "bailout," is in
actuality a "takeover." This mechanism was used in the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts: The
federal government and the unions now control those corporations. In health care, insurance companies,
like the automobile bondholders, will be dumped, and the hospitals will by necessity be globally budgeted by
government. None of this is accidental.
Nevada to Join Suits Against Obamacare.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's home state of Nevada is expected today [4/6/2010] to join 15 other states
that have filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare. Nevada Democratic Atty. Gen. Catherine
Cortez Mastro has refused to challenge the law on behalf of the state at the request of the Republican Gov.
Injunction sought to halt 'Obamacare'.
A legal team of experts on civil liberties and human rights is asking a federal court in Michigan to grant a
preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of the "individual mandate" in "Obamacare," warning that
if imposed, it effectively will destroy the nation.
Alaska to join
states' health bill lawsuit. Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell announced the state will join 20 others
in suing to overturn the health care overhaul bill signed into law last month by President Barack Obama.
Brief Analysis of the Legal Challenges to Obamacare. Conceptually, if there is a law that demands that
the Supreme Court reassert a reasonable interpretation of the Commerce Clause, this is it. Obamacare mandates
that individual citizens purchase a product, on penalty of fines, that is not available in interstate commerce,
all theoretically in the name of regulating interstate commerce? Just to speak the concept aloud is to be struck
dumb by the breathtaking arrogance of Congress in passing this bill, and the disregard for the Constitutional limits
on their power.
Obamacare Class Action Lawsuit.
"We now have 28,570 people signed up to be added as plaintiffs to the Obamacare class action lawsuit. I'm
still stunned at the number of people that have joined our effort. The more plaintiffs we have, the
greater the effect it will have on the attitude of the court, which will cause them to consider the legal
arguments more seriously."
Read The Fine Print.
[Scroll down] Greg Scandlen, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, says due to a little-known legal
concept the entire law would unravel if a single part was found to be outside the Constitution. "Apparently
there was no 'severability' clause written into this law, which shows how amateurish the process was," he wrote.
"Virtually every bill I've ever read includes a provision that if any part of the law is ruled unconstitutional
the rest of the law will remain intact. Not this one. That will likely mean that the entire law will
be thrown out if a part of it is found to violate the Constitution." No argument from us. The bill
writers and lawmakers who voted for it without reading it were unprofessional.
Would Happen if the Supreme Court Struck Down Health Care Reform? This weekend, I had a
conversation with someone non-crazy who thinks there is a not-insignificant chance that the Supreme Court
will overturn health care reform, or at least the individual mandate (it's not clear what happens to the
rest of the law if the mandate goes down; there's some possibility that this would invalidate the entire
law). Mind you, this person was not suggesting that the chances were, say, 85%; more like 25%.
But in a case like this, 25% is a big chance.
candidate in DC to serve Democrats with Obamacare complaint. A Tennessee constitutional lawyer
running for Congress is flying to Washington D.C. today to make an attempt at personally serving top Democrats
with a class action lawsuit against President Obama's health care bill. Van Irion says he's planning on
doing everything he can to personally serve a complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction on President
Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Attorney General Eric Holder.
Challenging the Legality of Obamacare.
The U.S. Citizens Association in May fired a shot across the bow of President Obama's unconstitutional healthcare
takeover by filing a lawsuit in federal court to overturn the bill signed into law in March. Unlike the
lawsuits filed by various states' attorneys general, this lawsuit by the Ohio-based conservative organization
was filed on behalf of our 23,000 members.
Giant Obamacare Loophole.
NRO's Stephen Spruiell notes a large Obamacare loophole which could undo the entire scheme of forcing young
healthy citizens to subsidize the health care of everyone else.
Obamacare challenges. While lower courts wrestle over the constitutionality of Obamacare,
nearly one-sixth of the economy hangs in the balance. The plans of doctors, medical students,
hospitals, clinics and millions of employers will change based on whether the health care law stands or
falls. The Supreme Court needs to step in and resolve the doubt.
Not above the law.
Lawyers are officers of the court, meaning they owe the institution a duty of candor. So it's
unethical — even scandalous — for a lawyer to promise a judge he will obey a particular
court order and then turn around and immediately violate it. Yet that's exactly what President Obama's
Department of Justice did in the Florida federal district court case involving the constitutionality of
lawmaker says Supreme Court may nix individual mandate. On the one-year anniversary of the
historic healthcare reform law, at least one Democratic congressman disagrees with his party's prevalent
opinion and believes the U.S. Supreme Court may well strike down the law's individual mandate as unconstitutional.
A Grim Prognosis.
Consider this an early-detection warning for a piece of legislation that became law one year ago — the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or "ObamaCare." Many of its most troubling provisions
haven't taken effect. Indeed, it's in legal limbo, having been declared unconstitutional by a
federal district judge in a lawsuit brought by no fewer than 26 states. But some portions of
the law are now active. And as Heritage health care expert Brian Blase points out in a new research
paper, they're beginning to inflict harm.
Supreme Court Allows
Obamacare to Metastasize. The Supreme Court's decision to deny Virginia's request for expedited
review of its Obamacare lawsuit was disappointing but not surprising. Even the Old Dominion's Attorney
General, Kenneth Cuccinelli, has admitted all along that his chances of convincing the high court to grant
his "petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment" were quite low. Nonetheless, the White House
and its accomplices in the "news" media have greeted the decision with thinly disguised glee.
court questions Obama healthcare lawsuit. An appeals court on Tuesday [5/10/2011] sharply
questioned whether the state of Virginia could challenge President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law,
which requires Americans to buy insurance in a bid to slow healthcare costs. The Obama administration
is trying to save the individual mandate after a Virginia federal judge agreed with the state it was
unconstitutional and struck down that part of the law.
panel hearing ObamaCare suit comprised of Democrat nominees. A three-judge federal appeals panel
comprised of two Obama nominees and a Clinton nominee will hear arguments later this morning in two lawsuits
challenging the constitutionality of the national health care law. The makeup of the U.S. Fourth Circuit
of Appeals panel is crucial, because in lower court rulings so far, Democratic judges have upheld the law while
Republican judges have declared it unconstitutional.
your broccoli': Moms demand it. Can government? About 20 minutes into Tuesday's [5/10/2011]
hearings, Appeals Court Judge Diana Gribbon Motz told Liberty University lawyer Mathew Staver that she was
surprised a certain topic had yet to come up: "the broccoli question." "There is a lot of talk
in the papers about if Congress can do this, it can require people to buy broccoli," Motz said.
Circuit may rule Obamacare mandate is a tax. This afternoon [5/23/2011], the Fourth Circuit
panel considering the Commonwealth of Virginia's challenge to Obamacare has asked for supplemental briefs
from all parties related to the arguments about the federal government's constitutional powers of taxation.
This may mean that the court is setting itself up to rule that the penalty for not purchasing insurance under
Obamacare is, in fact, a tax and not a penalty at all, and that therefore the court lacks jurisdiction to
hear the case.
Next Constitutional Challenge. Was District Court Judge Roger Vinson correct to rule that
the federal government can force states to expand their Medicaid programs as a precondition for continuing
to receive matching federal funds for the program? Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act, states have a choice: Expand their Medicaid rolls or bear the full cost of caring for their
state's current Medicaid population, while continuing to subsidize the Medicaid programs of other states.
Obamacare illegal? Three federal judges today [6/9/2011] indicated they may rule part of President Obama's
much-criticised healthcare bill as unconstitutional. The panel in Atlanta repeatedly questioned the legislation's
individual mandate, which would require almost every American to carry health insurance -- or face penalties.
Obamacare Has Another Rough
Day in Court. The good news, for the government lawyers who on Wednesday defended ObamaCare against
a constitutional challenge brought by 26 states, is that the judges of the Atlanta appeals court asked
no questions about broccoli. But their good luck appears to have ended there.
Economic Flaws. Befitting its legacy of defending U.S. small business, entrepreneurs and the free
market, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) has challenged the constitutionality of the individual
mandate. The lawsuit, which was argued Wednesday [6/8/2011] at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is
expected to reach the Supreme Court for its ultimate resolution.
for Obamacare before Supreme Court. Obamacare is likely facing its last stop before it heads to
the Supreme Court in 2012. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta will hear arguments
Wednesday in the biggest Obamacare case in the country. This is the Obama administration's appeal in
Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It's the case in which President Obama
suffered his most embarrassing defeat at the district court level when Judge Roger Vinson struck down not
only the linchpin of Obamacare — its individual mandate — but the entire 2,700-page
law with it.
Why ObamaCare Is
Losing in the Courts. When we first articulated ObamaCare's fundamental constitutional flaws
in these pages nearly two years ago, our objections were met with derision by the law's defenders. Those
who have been following the unfolding litigation are no longer laughing.
Our Lawless President?
First, Obama stretches the limits of the already largely deformed Commerce Clause with the individual mandate
for health care, with the added twist that the act did not include the standard severability clause, which means
that the Court faces the added difficulty of having to decide whether to strike down the entire act if it finds
the individual mandate to be unconstitutional. This is a high stakes game of chicken...
fighting to kill Obamacare with state constitution. Ohio-based groups have issued yet another
challenge to Obamacare's constitutionality. More than 540,000 voters in the state have signed petitions
in favor of a ballot initiative to amend Ohio's state constitution to directly conflict with Obamacare's individual
Obama is Determined to Destroy America.
The 2010 Democrat losses in the House are largely attributed to the passage of Obamacare, a piece of
legislation that was not only widely protested, but that led to the Tea Party movement and new members
of the House representing its common sense agenda. The House subsequently voted to repeal Obamacare
and it is being contested in the courts by 26 States.
healthcare battle appealed to Supreme Court. A Michigan-based legal group on Wednesday [7/27/2011]
asked the Supreme Court to review and overturn a decision that found President Barack Obama's signature healthcare
law constitutional. In the first of several appeals likely to reach the high court, the Thomas More Law
Center said it asked the justices to review a U.S. appeals court ruling last month that Congress had the power
to require that Americans buy health insurance.
Faces Death Panel Of Its Own. ObamaCare isn't dead yet, but it is sitting before a death panel
of its own. A federal appeals court ruled Friday that a key provision that forces Americans to buy health
care insurance is unconstitutional.
blow to Obama as appeals court rules against healthcare mandate. President Barack Obama's
healthcare law suffered a setback on Friday when a U.S. appeals court ruled that it was unconstitutional
to require all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty. The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit,
based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also
reversed a lower court decision that threw out the entire healthcare law.
Obamacare Litigation: Cue Foot-Dragging. Today's Eleventh Circuit decision holding Obamacare's
individual mandate unconstitutional is the biggest victory to date for critics of the health-care law and more
bad news for a president who is already experiencing historically high disapproval levels. This decision
creates a circuit split with June's ruling in favor of the law, which is an important factor weighing in favor
of the Supreme Court taking the case.
Appeals court strikes down health-care law's insurance mandate. A
federal appeals court struck down a central provision of the 2010 health-care law Friday [8/12/2011], ruling
that Congress overstepped its authority by requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance.
The divided three-judge panel from the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta is the first
appellate court to rule against any portion of the statute. The decision marks a significant victory for
the 26 Republican attorneys general and governors who challenged the health-care law on behalf of their states.
11th Circuit struck down Obamacare's mandate. Today's ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals striking down the national health care law's individual mandate hinged on an issue that has
consistently tripped up the Obama administration during oral arguments in several of the legal challenges
to the law. The essential question is: if courts uphold the individual mandate, what is the
constitutional principle that would limit the U.S. Congress's exercise of its Commerce Clause power?
Court Tea Leaves for ObamaCare? If Obamacare's health insurance mandate is upheld — as
the federal Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in late June — individual liberty is in serious
long-term jeopardy. The rationale behind forcing individuals to buy health insurance versus healthy
food is indistinguishable. The Obama Administration contends that, if people aren't forced to buy
health insurance, the market will collapse.
Health Care and the Constitution: We Now Have a Circuit Split! If there was ever any doubt
that the long-raging debate over the constitutionality of the federal health-care overhaul, the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, would ultimately be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, that doubt was
all but extinguished today [8/12/2011].
Appeals Court Declares "Individual Mandate" Unconstitutional. The 11th Circuit U.s. Court
of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia has declared the "individual mandate" provision of President Obama's health
care bill unconstitutional, calling it an "unprecedented exercise of congressional power," Reuters reports.
The section of the bill in question made it illegal for an individual not to have health insurance,
and is one of the most contested parts of the law passed in March 2010.
11th Circuit says mandate unconstitutional.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday [8/12/2011] 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 the Supreme Court will choose to review the law. The suit was brought by 26 states —
nearly all led by Republican governors and attorneys general — and the National Federation of
Independent Business. The Department of Justice is expected to appeal.
Obamacare Is Going Down.
The Congress only has the powers specifically enumerated and granted to it in the Constitution. One of
those is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power
"To regulate commerce... among the several states." As James Madison explained in The Federalist Papers,
that power was granted in the Constitution because under the prior Articles of Confederation the various states
started adopting protectionist measures against each other, disabling the national economy.
Life support for
Obamacare. President Obama's scheme to take over America's health care system is in critical
condition. On Friday [8/12/2011], a federal appellate court in Atlanta struck down the individual
mandate, a key component of Obamacare. This decision conflicts directly with the clean bill of health
previously given to the entire law by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Ohio. With the
4th Circuit expected to rule soon on Virginia's challenge, the circuit split sets the stage for the Supreme
Court to resolve the matter in the next term, hopefully putting this expensive and unnecessary program out
of our misery.
Seek Appeal in Atlanta on Health Care. The Obama administration has decided not to ask a federal
appeals court in Atlanta for further review of a ruling striking down the centerpiece of President Barack
Obama's sweeping health care overhaul.
law headed for Supreme Court. The Obama administration on Monday cleared the way for the U.S.
Supreme Court to decide in its 2011-12 term the president's signature healthcare law that requires Americans
to buy insurance or face a penalty.
Obama's Lucky, Court Will Kill His Health Plan. Why did the Obama administration, after dragging
out the various court challenges to ObamaCare, suddenly step on the gas? The administration surprised
court watchers by passing up a chance to slow down ObamaCare's long march to an eventual Supreme Court ruling.
In failing to request a hearing by the entire panel of the 11th Circuit appeals court — to overturn
an anti-ObamaCare decision by three of its judges — the administration now puts the matter on a
faster track to the Supreme Court.
26 states appeal
health care law to Supreme Court. States and a business group opposed to President Barack Obama's
health care overhaul asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday [9/28/2011] for a speedy ruling that puts an end to the
law aimed at extending insurance coverage to more than 30 million people.
The Supreme Arbiter of Your
Liberty. Now that the Department of Justice has petitioned the Supreme Court to review Florida v.
HHS, the high-profile challenge to Obamacare whose plaintiffs include officials of 26 states, most experts
believe the justices will take up the case this term and issue their decision next summer. This possibility
has been greeted with no small amount of glee by the law's opponents. But we should be careful what we
wish for. ... The deciding vote will probably be cast by a justice whose opinions have been all over the
Proves: Kagan Must Recuse. U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle, a Clinton appointee, ironically
provided evidence last week that seals the case that Justice Elena Kagan is required by law to recuse herself
from cases challenging Obamacare. The law in question is 28 U.S.C. 455. It mandates that
a justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned"
or "(w)here he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or
material witness concerning the proceedings ..."
The Supreme Court's decision to take up the challenges to Obamacare is certainly good news for the law's opponents.
At the very least, a decision next year would put Obamacare front and center in the heart of election season when
the Democrats would like nothing better than to pretend that Obama's first two years did not exist. At most,
it could also dramatically weaken and undercut the statute itself, helping to clear the way for its repeal.
Supreme Court will
hear health care case this term. The Supreme Court said Monday [11/14/2011] it will hear arguments
next March over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul — a case that could shake the political landscape
as voters are deciding if Obama deserves another term.
Court will hear health care case. The Supreme Court on Monday said it will hear challenges to
President Obama's signature health care law next spring, meaning it is likely to rule by June, right in the
middle of the president's bid for re-election. The court has carved out more than five hours for oral
argument at the end of March — far more than the usual one hour allotted to most cases, and evidence
of the intense legal debate and high political stakes.
announcement raises recusal questions for Kagan, Thomas. "Before the Supreme Court case is heard, we
need to know if Justice Elena Kagan helped the Obama administration prepare its defense for Obamacare when she was
solicitor general. The Justice Department must answer serious questions about whether Justice Kagan has an
inherent conflict of interest, which would demand that she recuse herself from the Obamacare case," said Rep. John
Fleming, Louisiana Republican.
Moments of Obamacare. At the time [Seth] Lipsky made his observation — four months before
Obamacare was enacted — many thought an enumerated powers challenge unlikely, given the Court's expansive
reading of the Commerce Clause since it acquiesced in FDR's New Deal about 70 years ago. But six
appellate courts have now struggled with the issue, producing conflicting opinions totaling 654 pages.
The latest acknowledged a "troubling" fact: not only is the Obamacare mandate unprecedented, but if upheld there is
no "limiting principle" (watch Elena Kagan try to address the "Broccoli" hypothetical here) that would preclude
government-mandated purchases of things such as Obamacars, government bonds, etc.
America Won't Accept ObamaCare. As anticipated, the U. S. Supreme Court will join 300 million
fellow Americans in rendering judgment on Obamacare. But with this difference: The high court's
judgment, expected next June, will be the judgment that sticks.
emails lead to calls for inquiry over her involvement in Obamacare. Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff
Sessions issued a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder Tuesday [11/15/2011] requesting answers to Kagan's
involvement after emails revealed Kagan enthusiastically supporting President Obama's Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, as well as possibly orchestrating legal defenses for the act. The emails, obtained
by Judicial Watch and originally reported by CNSnews.com, show Kagan and other administration officials setting
up meetings to discuss how to counter legal challenges to the health care law.
Another ObamaCare Glitch.
Even if ObamaCare survives Supreme Court scrutiny next spring, its trials will be far from over. That's
because the law has a major glitch that threatens its basic functioning. It's so problematic, in fact,
that the Obama administration is now brazenly trying to rewrite the law without involving Congress.
The Bell Tolls for Obamacare.
On November 14, the Supreme Court granted the Writ of Certiorari to hear the appeal of the cases testing the
constitutionality of Obamacare. The resulting decision will mark an historic watershed not only in the
restoration of constitutional jurisprudence, but in fundamental, market reform of the entire entitlement state.
Elena Kagan and Question 3.
[Scroll down] "No," she said. That was how she answered question No. 2, which inquired if she
had ever been asked her opinion about the merits or underlying legal issues in Florida's lawsuit against Obamacare.
That was also the way she answered question No. 3, which asked: "Have you ever been asked your opinion
regarding any other legal issues that may arise from Pub. L. No. 111-148?" — aka Obamacare. Thus,
during the time Obamacare was debated, enacted and targeted by lawsuits, no one in Obama's administration
bothered to ask his solicitor general about any legal issue that might arise from it.
Memo: Solicitor General Kagan 'Substantially Participated' in Obamacare-Related Case. On Jan. 13, 2010,
the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan a series of written
questions examining the issue of how she would handle recusing herself from cases she might have been involved in
as solicitor general if she were confirmed to the Supreme Court. "Notably, we are concerned about the
standard you would use to decide whether to recuse yourself from litigation you participated in as Solicitor
General," the senators wrote.
Congressmen to Court: If Individual Mandate's Unconstitutional, Strike Down All Obamacare. Twenty-seven
members of Congress, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), have signed an amicus
brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the entire Obamacare law if it finds that the individual mandate
provision is unconstitutional. The Family Research Council filed the amicus curiae in the case challenging
the constitutionality of the individual mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly
known as Obamacare.
Supreme Court says no to debate over Elena
Kagan health care role. The Supreme Court on Monday [1/23/2012] denied a request for debate over
whether Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the health care reform case due to be argued in March.
Freedom Watch, a group led by Larry Klayman, asked the court for permission to file a brief on Kagan's participation
in the case.
Asks Supreme Court for More Time to Defend ObamaCare. [Scroll down] For nearly 80 years, the
Commerce Clause has been wrested by a national government determined to appear to justify its unlawful behavior
by donning a cloak of constitutionality. That cloak is tattered and worn, and fortunately, there are a
few who refuse to be fooled by the disguise.
director undercuts legal case for Obamacare. Testifying before Congress this morning [2/15/2012],
President Obama's acting budget director Jeffrey Zients directly undercut one of the administration's key legal
defenses of its national health care law as it nears a hearing before the Supreme Court. In a hearing of
the House Budget Committee Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., pressed Zients on whether the penalty that the health care
law imposes on individuals who do not purchase health insurance constitutes a tax. Eventually, Zients
said it did not.
Must Recuse Herself from Obamacare Case. As solicitor general of the United States, Justice Elena Kagan served as
the head of an office responsible for formulating the Obama administration's legal defense of its domestic agenda priority —
Obamacare. It could be no surprise to President Obama[,] who appointed her to the Supreme Court[,] that any former solicitor
general would have many conflicts for years to come. Now, the Court will soon hear a constitutional challenge to the health-care
law. Despite mounting evidence of her substantial participation in the administration's legal defense of that law,
she still has not announced whether she will recuse herself from presiding over the case as a justice.
Court must strike down all of Obamacare. The main attraction in the upcoming Supreme Court case regarding
President Obama's health care law is the question of whether the mandate to purchase health insurance is a legitimate
exercise of the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. Indeed, from a broad constitutional
perspective, the answer to that question will determine whether we have a federal government of limited, defined powers
or a de facto plenary power limited only by specifically protected rights.
Watch sues DOJ over Kagan Obamacare docs. Judicial Watch has sued the Department of Justice to seek
files relating to Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's involvement in discussions about the legal challenges to the
national health care law when she was President Obama's solictor general. With the Supreme Court set to hear
oral arguments in the health care challenges late next month, the issue of whether Kagan should recuse herself
given her prior role in the Obama administration has generated controversy.
President Obama's health care law is
unraveling. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of President Obama's health
care plan at the end of March, one of the president's closest advisers has added to the weight of evidence that the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is losing viability among lawmakers and the public. Last week, while testifying before Congress,
the president's acting budget director Jeffrey Zients undercut one of the central legal defenses of the law, admitting that the
penalty imposed on those who do not purchase health insurance does not constitute a tax.
attorneys general litigate, push back against Obama regulations. Nine Republican attorneys general
declared Monday [3/5/2012] that the Obama administration is riding roughshod over the law, and is using its
regulatory powers to impose huge costs on the states. "You're seeing now a federal government that's
doing everything in its power to circumvent the Bill of Rights," South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson
said during a press conference during the Washington, D.C. meeting of the Republican Attorneys General Association.
"We are constantly being forced to sue the federal government to protect our states," added Florida AG Pam Bondi.
Against ObamaCare Anti-Conscience Mandate Pile Up. While some liberals are running around thinking
they have actually gotten Americans to believe there is a conspiracy to remove low-cost birth control from the
shelves of Target, the list of lawsuits against the Obama administration's anti-conscience mandate is getting
longer, evidence that Americans do know that the ObamaCare requirement is really about an end to religious freedom
and not the cost of condoms.
Obamacare — still no answers. The [Supreme] court is about to hear arguments over
whether the president's signature political achievement, the health care reform law, is constitutional or
not. The issue has split federal judges throughout the country, with some upholding the law and others
striking it down. At the heart of the case is whether Congress has unlimited power to control people's
lives or whether the Constitution places limits, enforced by the courts, on congressional and presidential
power. Those arguments will be held March 26 before a panel of nine justices that includes the
president's former chief lawyer to the Supreme Court, the newest justice of the court, Elena Kagan.
Liberty and ObamaCare.
Few legal cases in the modern era are as consequential, or as defining, as the challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act that the Supreme Court hears beginning Monday [12/26/2012]. The powers that the Obama Administration is
claiming change the structure of the American government as it has existed for 225 years. Thus has the health-care
law provoked an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional showdown that endangers individual liberty.
contract problem. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, has focused on this fact:
The individual mandate is incompatible with centuries of contract law. This is so because a compulsory contract is an oxymoron.
Ruling on health care
case hard to predict. A curious thing about this week's Supreme Court hearings on President Obama's health care law is
that while nobody doubts how the four Democrat-appointed justices will decide, there is no such certainty on how the Republican
appointees will rule in the case, which will go a long way toward defining the scope and limits of government power in the
Obamacare in Court: Day One.
Justice Alito offered a pointed question to the solicitor general foreshadowing the skepticism (if not hostility) that the Justice Department
is likely to face from the Court given the administration's flip-flopping on whether the penalty in Obamacare is a tax: "General Verrilli,
today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a
tax." The answer, of course, is that it isn't a tax today, and it isn't a tax tomorrow either.
Obamacare on Trial: Day One. The
solicitor general had an interesting morning. He argued before the Supreme Court's nine justices that Obamacare's individual mandate
isn't a "tax" — even though he'll argue tomorrow that the mandate is a "tax." And then the government's top litigator
invoked the possibility of incompetent government litigators as a reason to reject an argument raised by the plaintiffs.
Why Obamacare is bad for America's
health: The 2012 Supreme Court must determine whether the Founders had any intention of mandating the behavior of private
enterprises and individuals. To me, the answer is obvious: absolutely not. Our nation was founded on the Declaration
of Independence. Freedom of choice and a free market are at the core of our nation's soul.
Justice Scalia to Obama's
Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid'. While Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. made the Obama administration's case for the
constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health care law Tuesday [3/27/2012], Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
interrupted and lectured Verrilli about American consumers, saying "These people [are] not stupid."
Why Obamacare Must Go.
This morning, I attended Day Two of the Supreme Court hearings on Obamacare. I left the room more convinced than ever that
these hearings represent a watershed moment for our republic. The nine justices have essentially been asked to decide whether
there are any real limits on the federal government's power to intervene in the lives of American citizens.
law 'looks like it's going to be struck down'. CNN's legal correspondent Jeffrey Toobin reports that the court's conservative
wing appeared skeptical of the Obama administration's arguments in favor of the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act.
"This was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it's going to be struck down," Toobin said on CNN.
"All of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong."
Obamacare Defense A "Train Wreck".
It's still very early and anything can happen, but reports indicate that five of the nine Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical
of the individual mandate's constitutionality and analysts across the political spectrum concluded that the Obama legal team lost
Supreme Court arguments
day two: "a train wreck" for Obamacare. Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute and author of two books on
Obamacare, predicting that Justice Kennedy "will cast the deciding vote," said "He questioned what constitutional power the government had to
force all Americans to buy health insurance. And he asked if Congress had exceeded its regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause."
Arguments Tilt Against the Individual Mandate. Solicitor General Verrilli had a rough start to his argument, speaking
haltingly, stumbling, and stopping to take a drink. The solicitor general spent almost all his time trying to convince the
justices that health care is, in fact, different from other markets. While Justices Ginsburg and Kagan were trying to throw
him soft balls, Verrilli kept striking out with Justices Scalia, Roberts, and Alito, and to some extent, Kennedy.
A Constitutional Awakening.
Tuesday's two hours of Supreme Court oral arguments on ObamaCare's individual mandate were rough-going for the government and its
assertions of unlimited federal power. Several Justices are clearly taking seriously the Constitution's structural checks and
balances that are intended to protect individual liberty.
mandate's Supreme jeopardy. Sparks flew in the US Supreme Court yesterday, as lawyers for and against the
Obama health law's individual mandate argued over whether there are limits on what the federal government can compel
Americans to do or to buy.
Obama's tax plea gets rude reception.
While the fate of President Obama's health care law remains an open question, the Supreme Court was far more clear on one issue
Tuesday: The law's backers won't be able to justify the individual mandate to purchase health insurance by pointing to
Congress' taxing powers.
Reading entire health care law would be cruel and unusual punishment. Arguing about whether the
court could keep some provisions of the health care law intact, Justice Antonin Scalia says that reading all
2,700 pages of the statute would constitute, basically, torture: ["]JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler,
what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
(Laughter.) JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect
us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic?["]
Justices Question Extent of Federal
Power. The Supreme Court ended three momentous days of argument Wednesday over the constitutionality of the Obama
administration's signature health-care law, with opponents pushing their rhetoric into fundamental questions about the limits of
Court Likely To
Overturn ObamaCare After Hearings. After three days of listening to the government make its case for ObamaCare, one
thing is clear: The individual mandate has no constitutional basis or justification, and the entire law should be struck down.
Government Force You to Eat Broccoli? This week, the Supreme Court measured Obamacare to see whether it fits within
the confines of the Constitution. The big picture is whether the Constitution limits the behavior of the federal government
to the plain meaning and historical context of the Constitution, or whether clever lawyers and politicians can interpret language
in the Constitution so as to justify whatever Congress wishes to do. Does the Constitution mean what it says?
suffers a severability trainwreck at the Supreme Court. If yesterday [3/27/2012] was a surprise to the
liberal defenders of Obamacare, today must have been a shocker. Judging from today's oral argument, five Supreme
Court justices seem fully prepared to strike down the entire statute if the individual mandate fails.
House has no contingency plans if health law is tossed. The White House has no contingency plans in place
in the event the Supreme Court rules the healthcare law is unconstitutional. White House officials said Wednesday [3/28/2012]
they remain "confident" that the healthcare reform law is constitutional and is implementing all the provisions of the law.
The ObamaCare Reckoning.
After the third and final day of Supreme Court scrutiny of the Affordable Care Act, the bravado of the legal establishment has
turned to uncertainty and in some cases outright panic. Everyone who said the decision was an easy fait accompli has
been proven wrong by a Court that has treated the constitutional questions that ObamaCare poses with the seriousness they deserve.
blame Verrilli: Hard to defend the indefensible. How bad was it? Bad enough that Jeffrey Toobin called the
event "a train wreck," Mother Jones called it a "disaster," and constitutional law professor Ann Althouse, amid terrible reviews of
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's performance, wondered if Verrilli had taken a dive, deliberately throwing the argument so that
the Obama administration would no longer be tied to the increasingly unpopular health care bill.
Capitol Follies. Well, despite the prognostications
of the usual media Court watchers, in three days of argument the Court seemed to find the constitutional basis for the Act missing and its
consequences dire. [...] Highlights of the Government's disastrous arguments appear everywhere. Hilarity ensued, as was inevitable when
the Solicitor General argued one day in Court that the mandate was a penalty, not a tax, and the very next day that it was a tax. My
favorite excerpts were of Justices Breyer and Kagan, trying to bolster the Solicitor General.
ObamaCare and the Supreme Court.
ObamaCare was passed as a vast, ugly pile of glop, and now this notional "reform" may be struck down by a 5-to-4 Supreme Court opinion.
This corruption of process betrays just how dull our once-lustrous Constitution has become. Leftists have long used the Supreme Court to
fast-track their agenda by having augurs "read" into the Constitution things invisible to us mortals. Now the left is discovering that
he who lives by the sword may die by the sword — i.e., that we all should dread an imperial judiciary.
Assailing the Supreme Court.
After last week's Supreme Court argument on ObamaCare, the political left seems to be suffering a nervous breakdown. Only
a week ago, the liberal consensus was that the federal mandate to buy insurance couldn't possibly be overturned. Now as
panic sets in, the left has taken to mau-mauing the Justices by saying that if they overturn the mandate they'll be acting
like political partisans.
law: On Monday [4/2/2012], President Obama warned that any attempt by the Supreme Court to strike down the
individual healthcare mandate would be "judicial activism" of the very worst kind. [...] In short, Obama opposes judicial
activism where he deems it to contradict the will of the people, but calls it judicial empathy and endorses it when it
upholds his point of view.
Obama's Quest To Consolidate Federal
Power. [Scroll down] Of course, the primary suspect in this scenario is Elena Kagan, the newest member of the court.
It may seem pejorative to suggest that she could so flagrantly compromise the integrity of her office, except that by remaining involved with the
Obamacare court case, she has already done just that. Having stumped for Obama's massive governmental power grab as his Solicitor General,
she can by no means be objective in her current position. Yet she flatly declined to recuse herself from the case. So regardless of
whether or not she actually divulged last week's decision on Obamacare, the Court as it currently exists is in a wholly compromised condition.
Why the Bishops Are Suing the U.S. Government .
The main goal of the mandate is not, as HHS claimed, to protect women's health. It is rather a move to conscript religious organizations into a
political agenda, forcing them to facilitate and fund services that violate their beliefs, within their own institutions. The media have implied
all along that the dispute is mainly of concern to a Catholic minority with peculiar views about human sexuality. But religious leaders of all
faiths have been quick to see that what is involved is a flagrant violation of religious freedom.
Dem-backed law may be downfall of Obama birth
control mandate. The biggest legal threat to the White House's birth control mandate could come from a decades-old law that was championed by
liberal Democrats, according to legal experts. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has been mentioned in nearly all of the more than
30 lawsuits pending against President Obama's administration over the mandate.
Catholics won't go
quietly. Is it really part of Obama's battleground-state strategy to disassemble Franklin Roosevelt's Democratic coalition in the
middle of a tight reelection campaign? Did he think traditional Catholics would depart quietly? Well, they haven't. Forty-three
Catholic institutions, including the University of Notre Dame, Catholic University and the archdioceses of New York and Washington, filed suit
Monday [5/21/2012] in federal court to overturn the mandate.
Obamacare Will Be Upheld 6-3, 'Because I Know the Constitution'. [Scroll down] Pelosi, in reference
to how the nine-judge court will rule, said, "6-3. That's it. 6-3." She was then asked why she was so
confident about her prediction, "Do you have a crystal ball or what is your confidence — you wrote the bill
but why do you have this confidence?" Pelosi said: "Because I know the Constitution. This bill is
ironclad. It is ironclad."
Holder Refuses to Provide Testimony on
Kagan's Involvement in Obamacare. Attorney General Eric Holder has refused to provide written testimony to the Senate Judiciary
Committee in response to "questions for the record" submitted to him by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.) that focus on Supreme Court Justice Elena
Kagan's involvement in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — AKA Obamacare — while she was President Barack Obama's
The States Can Still Kill Obamacare. Although the voters can put an
end to the madness on November 6, the states don't need to wait until Election Day to take aim at a point of vulnerability that remains in place despite the Court's
latest caprice. They can refuse to implement the law's insurance exchanges.
Judge tosses out contraception lawsuit filed by Nebraska, six other states.
A federal judge has dismissed a federal lawsuit in which Nebraska and six other states tried to block part of the federal health care
law that requires contraception coverage. U.S. District Judge Warren Urbom of Lincoln dismissed the case Tuesday [7/17/2012],
saying the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the action challenging part of the Affordable Care Act.
owners score win against ObamaCare mandate. The Catholic family that owns a Colorado-based company won a court victory in their battle
to stop the Obama administration from requiring them to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception, a
mandate they say violates their religious beliefs and First Amendment rights. Hercules Industries, a Denver-based heating ventilation and air
conditioning manufacturer that employs nearly 300 full-time workers, got an injunction in federal court which stops enforcement of the
controversial ObamaCare mandate.
business owners score win against ObamaCare mandate. The Catholic family that owns a Colorado-based company won a court victory
in their battle to stop the Obama administration from requiring them to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization
and contraception, a mandate they say violates their religious beliefs and First Amendment rights.
Hercules shows strength, halts Obama abortion pill mandate. A federal court
issued an order Friday [7/27/2012] that halts enforcement of the Obama administration's abortion pill mandate against a Colorado family-owned business
while an Alliance Defending Freedom lawsuit challenging the mandate continues in court. The mandate forces employers, regardless of their
religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy
Federal court allows company to ignore
birth-control mandate. A federal court said Friday [7/27/2012] that a Colorado-based company does not have to comply with the Obama
administration's birth-control mandate because of the employer's religious beliefs. Several businesses and religious groups have sued over the
policy, which requires most employers to provide contraception coverage in their healthcare plans. Friday's temporary injunction is the first
time a court has ruled against the policy.
Judge blocks contraception
mandate in religious liberty lawsuit. A federal judge in Colorado relieved a private company owned by Roman Catholics of the requirement
to provide employees with contraception, pending further litigation of the contraception mandate. "A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary
remedy; accordingly, the right to relief must be clear and unequivocal," Judge John Kane — an appointee of President Jimmy Carter's —
wrote as he explained his order today. "On balance, the threatened harm to Plaintiffs, impingement of their right to freely exercise their
religious beliefs, and the concommittant public interest in that right s[t]rongly favor the entry of injunctive relief."
DOJ to Colorado Family: Give Up Your Religion or
Your Business. The Justice Department last week presented the Newland family of Colorado — who own Hercules Industries, a
heating, ventilation and air-conditioning business — with what amounted to an ultimatum: Give up your religion or your business.
"Hercules Industries has 'made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business," the Justice Department said
in a formal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
Another Obamacare Mandate Runs Afoul of the Courts.
If the supporters of Obamacare thought its legal troubles were over after the recent Supreme Court ruling, they learned otherwise last
week. [...] Still, it is significant because it is the first such order against the contraception mandate and it protects a family-run
enterprise whose owners merely seek to operate their company in a way that reflects their religious beliefs.
The Origination Clause: Die
Harder, ObamaCare! Chief Justice John Roberts could begin his next Supreme Court decision regarding ObamaCare with the
following statements: "Whoops, ObamaCare is unconstitutional. As ObamaCare involves taxes, the House — not
the Senate — was constitutionally responsible for originating ObamaCare." If Roberts agrees with the Pacific Legal
Foundation's (PLF) recent case against ObamaCare, then Roberts, as suggested above, could reverse his decision in June 2012 that
most of ObamaCare is constitutional.
Barack Obama attempts to intimidate the Supreme Court
Barack Obama cannot tolerate rejection. The week after his pet project -- socialized medicine -- was fought in the Supreme Court,
B.H. Obama preemptively castigated the Supreme Court on April 2, 2012, essentially warning the justices not to overturn his
signature legislation. In the process, he revealed (again) that he is ignorant, dishonest and petulant. When his statements
were challenged in the next few days, he sent his minions out to amend, retract and apologize for his misstatements.
The Week Obama Jumped the
Shark. Obama, a former community organizer who is perhaps unaware of the finer points of the law, might
want to acquaint himself with an obscure 19th century case, Marbury v. Madison, which established the doctrine of
judicial review and grants federal courts the power to void acts of Congress that are in conflict with the Constitution.
What Obama describes as "unprecedented" has, in fact, been done countless times since 1803.
a Bully President Obama Has Suddenly Become,' Says SC Gov.. "What is amazing is what a bully President
Obama has suddenly become," South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) said on Wednesday [4/4/2012]. The man who took
office on a promise of 'hope and change' is now bullying people to get his way, Haley told Fox & Friends. "He's
bullying his way on Paul Ryan, saying he's not coming up with an adequate budget. Now he's bullying the Supreme
Court, saying no, they won't reverse (the health care law) — they won't go against us on this.
says 'courts have final say' in response to furor over Obama's health law comments. Attorney General
Eric Holder acknowledged Wednesday that the "courts have final say," and said his department would respond formally
to an appeals court order to explain whether the Obama administration believes judges in fact have the power to
overturn federal laws. The attorney general, at a brief press conference in Chicago, made clear the
administration thinks they do.
Obama Student: Obama's Ignorance of Constitution Embarassing. Prof. Thom Lambert of the University of
Missouri Law School has responded with alarm to President Barack Obama's attack on the Supreme Court and the power of
judicial review by recalling his own days as Obama's student at the University of Chicago. Lambert, who writes
for the "Truth on the Market" blog, not only studied under Obama, but also clerked for the federal judge who issued an
order yesterday demanding that the Department of Justice clarify whether the government believed courts had the power to
overturn constitutional laws.
Save ObamaCare, Obama Does Full Court Press. Someone will have to remind President Obama the Supreme
Court is a co-equal branch of government, part of a system of checks and balances designed to rein in precisely the
kind of runaway government exhibited by his administration. Our community-organizer-in-chief has a different opinion.
"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of
overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said at a news
conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.
FDR Redux: Obama Challenges
SCOTUS. Who is this president who darkens counsel with ignorant words concerning the balance of power
established by the Constitution of the United States? Monday, by declaring that the "unelected" Supreme Court
had better rule in favor of the 2,700-page health care act of 2010, the president of our country revealed not only his
hypocrisy, but the extent he will go to in order to preserve the key accomplishment of his administration. He
seems fully to intend to intimidate the Court into rubber-stamping the Affordable Care Act of 2010 as constitutional.
Political Word Games.
One of the highly developed talents of President Barack Obama is the ability to say things that are demonstrably false, and
make them sound not only plausible but inspiring. That talent was displayed just this week when he was asked whether
he thought the Supreme Court would uphold ObamaCare as constitutional or strike it down as unconstitutional.
Obama's faulty grasp of
our Constitution. President Obama's complaints about the Supreme Court's critical review of his health care law
suggests that he has a real problem with the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. He also seems to have a
problem understanding that the court is a "co-equal" branch of government. Its powers are set forth in the Constitution.
This is not some obscure government body that can be lectured about its duties and insulted as nothing more than -- in
Mr. Obama's words -- "an unelected group of people."
On: 5th Circuit Dares Obama to Deny Power of Judicial Review. Jan Crawford of CBS reports that a three-member
panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to "answer by Thursday [4/5/2012]
whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law." The response
is to be three pages long, single-spaced, according to an unnamed lawyer who was in the courtroom. The court's
response appears to be a direct challenge to President Barack Obama's attack yesterday [4/2/2012] on the Supreme Court
and the power of judicial review, which federal courts have exercised for over 200 years.
order Justice Department to clarify Obama remarks on health law case. A federal appeals court is striking
back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such
an act would be "unprecedented." A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the
Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a
Bullying Pulpit. "Justices should understand," Mr. Obama said in a stern and almost menacing tone,
that to rule this law unconstitutional would be an act of "judicial activism." The law, he said, is a "duly
constituted law" that was passed by a democratically elected Congress. Talk about voter intimidation! The
Justices will soon vote. They are on notice that Barack Obama will not only disapprove of them if they don't
vote his way, he clearly intends to campaign against the Supreme Court if they rule ObamaCare unconstitutional.
Not Administration's Worst Lawyer After All. What liberals figured out — and were mendacious enough
to exploit — is that there is no obvious recourse for the other branches if the Supreme Court issues an insane
ruling. So, beginning in the 1960s, liberals on the court started issuing insane rulings on a regular basis.
Carney: President's SCOTUS Goof Was 'Shorthand'. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney
recalibrated his spin today [4/5/2012] on President Barack Obama's verbal goof on the Supreme Court,
contending that the president's statement Monday about an "unprecedented" ruling amounted to "shorthand."
"Because he is a constitutional law professor, he spoke in shorthand," Carney said, as he sought for a second
day to swat away questions about the president's demonstrably false remark Monday that it would be "unprecedented"
for the court to strike down a law that was enacted with a "strong majority" in Congress.
It's Not the Constitution,
Stupid. I don't think that President Obama believes a word of his remarks about what the Supreme Court can
or cannot do about any given piece of legislation. Attorney General Holder said as much today when he agreed that
the Supremes are there specifically to protect against laws they consider unconstitutional. Holder's not picking
a fight with his boss. It's not about that. It's about power. And freedom. Power, because the
president and his people think that, since they are smarter and better than the rest of us, anyone who tries to limit
their power is bad, and has to be brought into line. Thus, the tough words of warning to any justice contemplating
voting against Obamacare.
and conquer — Obama knows exactly what he's saying. Of course President Obama knows that the
Supreme Court's chief function is to decide, disinterestedly, whether a law adheres to the U.S. Constitution.
He was, after all, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago and is — to hear the liberal
intelligentsia tell it — the smartest man since Albert Einstein. And of course Mr. Obama knows full
well that the high court has done just that since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, when the court asserted its
authority of judicial review spelled out by the Founding Fathers under Article III of the Constitution.
'Constitutional Scholar' Who Doesn't Understand the Constitution. In a stunningly arrogant move,
President Obama, the leader of one of the co-equal branches of the United States Government, intimated that
should the United States Supreme Court rule the individual mandate included in the Patient Protection and
Affordability Care Act is unconstitutional, they would be executing an act of "judicial activism. A
more inappropriate and coercive comment has not been uttered in recent history by the President of the United
States. Mr. Obama's politically and ideologically motivated comments stand as testimony to not only his
lack of constitutional literacy, it stands as a demented tribute to his audacity.
President Has Ever Ignored A SCOTUS Order. It was 1830, and Andrew Jackson, one of the founding pillars* of
the Democratic Party, had signed the "Indian Removal Act of 1830." The Democrats were pretty rattled that the heathens
had prospered, especially the "Five Civilized Tribes." The Trail Of Tears it was dubbed, for after the Supreme Court
had ordered Jackson to stand down, the Army marched in and literally stole everything the "Five Civilized Tribes" had built
(These tribes were the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, and Seminole). [...] Mr. Jackson was succeeded by another
Democrat, Martin Van Buren, who had been Jackson's Secretary of State. He followed in his predecessor's footsteps and
made sure that the slaughter and theft of land, businesses, and pride continued long after Mr. Jackson got the ball rolling.
Obama's Officious Opinions. On
Tuesday afternoon [4/3/2012], in a stunning rebuke of President Obama, Judge Jerry Smith of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
decided he had heard enough of the president's incessant hyper-partisan rhetoric challenging the independence of the federal
judiciary. [...] The President has made a habit of offering his opinion where it is not only unneeded but also exposes the
president to unnecessary political risk.
Tells Obama To Do His Judicial Review Homework. A Fifth Circuit Court judge, not amused by presidential
intimidation of the courts, tells the Justice Department to produce a three-page letter explaining the administration's
position on judicial review of laws.
Obama 'Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism'? Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News commentator, raised the
question on Neil Cavuto's "Your World" show Wednesday. And while it seems fanciful in light of the safeguards built
into our democracy and its institutions, it recognizes the threat posed by the president's policies and actions if left
unchecked. "I think the president is dangerously close to totalitarianism," Napolitano opined. "A few
months ago he was saying, 'The Congress doesn't count, the Congress doesn't mean anything, I am going to rule by
decree and by administrative regulation.' "Now he's basically saying the Supreme Court doesn't count. It
doesn't matter what they think. They can't review our legislation. That would leave just him as the only
branch of government standing."
A Know Nothing. Here, in outline
form, is why the pronouncements from President Barack Obama, warning the Supreme Court to not overturn Obamacare are
Obama As Dunce. Pretty much
everyone is piling on President Obama in connection with his airy dismissal of the concept of judicial review. The
Department of Justice backtracked today in the form of a letter from Eric Holder to the 5th Circuit panel that asked for
clarification of DOJ's position on that topic. In his letter, Holder admits the obvious.
Has It Backward; Striking Down Obamacare Would Protect Our Republic. For a man who promised to upgrade the dignity of the
office and held himself out as a model of bipartisanship, this president manages to insinuate himself into every imaginable issue and
incident on which he has a strong opinion, from the Cambridge police to Trayvon Martin to Las Vegas tourism. If he wants his
administration to engage in Chicago-style political street fighting, couldn't he at least delegate the task to one of his surrogates?
What business does he have calling out the Supreme Court while a major case is pending before it (the Affordable Care Act) and
issuing an implied threat that the justices had better not defy him?
Why the Supreme Court
Will Strike Down All of Obamacare. Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the Obamacare
law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented,
extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." (Emphasis added). President
Obama is not stupid. But he thinks you are. He knows the Obamacare health care takeover was not passed by a strong majority.
But he figures you're so dumb he can rewrite recent history in plain sight.
Nobody Here But Us Morons.
The other day, we speculated that President Obama's astonishing broadside against the US Supreme Court meant one of three things: Either he's
ignorant, or he was trying to bully the justices deciding the fate of ObamaCare in his favor — or he thinks Americans are morons.
Well, the answer is now clear: He thinks we're all morons.
Obama's bullying pulpit. I don't know which
was more embarrassing: Barack Obama trying to bully the Supreme Court -- again -- or The Washington Post trying to clean up after him.
Warning the court not to rule against Obamacare, Mr. Obama said it would be an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" of judicial activism. He
chided conservatives for long complaining about judicial activism, "that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted
and passed law."
And The Democrats Shocked By Constitutional Restraint. 'Unprecedented"? Judicial review has been the centerpiece
of the American constitutional system since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. "Strong majority"? The House has
435 members. In March 2010, Democrats held a 75-seat majority. ObamaCare passed by seven votes. In his
next-day walk back, the president implied that he was merely talking about the normal "restraint and deference" the courts owe
the legislative branch. This concern would be touching if it weren't coming from the leader of a party so deeply devoted
to the ultimate judicial usurpation — Roe v. Wade, which struck down the abortion laws of 46 states —
that fealty to it is the party's litmus test for service on the Supreme Court.
How Obama Destroys His Enemies:
President Obama has always disliked free speech as a general matter, particularly for those who oppose him. He frequently
suggests that those who disagree with him simply lack the power of reason; he constantly attacks those who do not bow to his
opinions. In the last month alone he has directly castigated the Supreme Court (it would be "unprecedented," he said,
for them to strike down Obamacare); Rush Limbaugh (he called up Sandra Fluke to tell her how out of line Limbaugh was); and
Congress (if they don't act on whatever it is he wants, he will go it alone).
Obama's Court-Packing Plan. The
prospect that President Obama is going to make his campaign not only against Governor Romney but against the Supreme Court of
the United States is starting to become apparent.
Time to Stop Being Intimidated by the Left.
Recently Barack Obama made some intemperate and absurdly false statements about the Supreme Court and the pending decision on the constitutionality of
ObamaCare. Obviously he, as a graduate of Harvard Law School, knows that the Supreme Court has the duty and right to decide the constitutionality
of any law passed by Congress. As a matter of fact, anyone who has studied American history and government to any degree would be aware of that
fact. Were his remarks part of some grand strategy, or those of a spoiled child lashing out at the possibility that his favorite toy could be
taken away by an evil stepmother? This is not the first time Barack Obama has thrown a temper tantrum.
How Are Those Supreme Court Attacks Working Out for You?
Obama is a poor student of history, and not just of Supreme Court history despite his prior position as a "Senior Lecturer" in constitutional
law. And without understanding the past, the president thinks of FDR's 1930s attack on the Supreme Court as part and parcel of Roosevelt's
being elected to the presidency four times.
Court's Approval Rating Beats Obama's.
If President Obama plans to run against the Supreme Court this fall, he may have some catching up to do. A Rasmussen Reports poll released
Monday [4/9/2012] shows the high court's popularity has shot up since its three days of hearings, March 26-28, on the constitutionality of the
health care reform legislation the President promoted and signed in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Marvelous. Note that the former lecturer at the University of Chicago School of Law
did not once give a reason why the law should be upheld on constitutional grounds. That question seems irrelevant to him. Much more
important is a preemptive strike against a potential conservative majority on the Court, which might quite reasonably decide that an individual
mandate to purchase health insurance exceeds Congress' enumerated power under the Commerce Clause and, therefore, the entire law ought to be
shucked and sent back to Congress, where legislators rather than judges can decide which parts should be kept and which scuttled. Only
for a man with a seriously warped view of constitutional government would such actions count as "judicial activism." Unfortunately
for us, Obama is exactly that man.
Constitutional Trap for Conservatives. The president's attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court
during his April 2 press conference had the distinct smell of desperation. And the excuse Obama
gave — that nine unelected judges striking down a law enacted by a popularly elected legislature
would be judicial activism — was not just constitutional illiteracy, but a red herring.
pressuring justices, Obama may have violated the code of legal ethics. When President Obama forcefully
lectured the Supreme Court last week on the constitutionality of his health care law, he may have done more than simply
attack an independent branch of government — he seems to have violated the code of legal ethics.
Every lawyer in America is bound by a code of ethics that governs membership in the profession. Ethical rules
are not law per se, but ethics committees have the power to bar lawyers from practicing law.
The Editor says...
None of that matters much, because Barack Obama allegedly surrendered his law license years ago and can't practice
law anyway. 
fundamental change. Unfortunately for the president, his understanding of the law is no better than his understanding of liberty.
To cudgel the Supreme Court as no more than "an unelected group of people" is to demean the Founding Fathers themselves for their brilliance in assuring
a substantial check on the tyranny of the majority by structuring the government with one branch that didn't have to pander for votes to obtain office.
It is exactly the fact that they are unelected that usually makes them untouchable by politicians and the political process as well.
How Obama Got the Individual
Mandate So Wrong. President Obama insists that the public would rise up in anger should the Supreme Court strike down all or
part of his health-care law. James Carville, a former strategist for Bill and Hillary Clinton, claims a death sentence for Obamacare
would benefit Democrats. Such arguments border on fantasy. The reaction to the closely watched Supreme Court oral arguments
on Obamacare shows that the law lost ground with the public the more the public followed the issue.
Obama v. the Court.
President Obama was once a lecturer on constitutional law, but he appears to be a little rusty. Most of what he has
said recently about the Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of the health-care law he signed has been
Dictator Obama Issues New Threat to Supreme Court over ObamaCare.
In his latest display of his full USA federal government dictatorship over both the American people and the former co-branches of
government, Dictator Obama is warning the Supreme Court to either rule in his favor or face severe consequences. Fox News'
Martha McCallum advised Thursday [5/3/2012] that the Obama Administration has been quietly sending missives to the Supreme Court
threatening that if it doesn't rule in his favor on ObamaCare, Medicare will face disruption and "chaos."
Obama Warns Supremes: Don't Overturn Healthcare Reform.
The Obama administration warned the Supreme Court this week via papers filed with the Court that if Obamacare is struck down, there will be an "extraordinary
disruption" in Medicare. Medicare was not discussed during the Supreme Court arguments, since it was not a Constitutional issue. This is a practical
argument, not a legal one; it's the Obama administration applying pressure to the Supremes.
Deception Fatigue. [Scroll down] This brilliant use of
indirect labeling can be observed in Obama's dismissal of the constitutional role of the Supreme Court to interpret the law. Obama said that he
hoped that an "unelected body" wouldn't overturn his law. This subtle derision implies that the role of the US Supreme Court is unfounded and
somehow unsanctioned. This kind of cynical demagoguery targets not the educated public participant, but the uneducated voter.
More Evidence That Obama Is
Learning Disabled. How can one explain his failure to learn one of the absolute basics in law school, even though the average
law student apparently can? Thomas Sowell correctly characterizes BHO as a liar. However, this gaffe is too fundamental to be
simply a lie. A gifted liar at the level of POTUS is more subtle when he really lies and would not be so easily caught. No, this
is something different. It is an act of "preterstupidity" and serves as further evidence that BHO possesses a learning disability.
Targeting John Roberts. You can tell the
Supreme Court is getting closer to its historic ObamaCare ruling because the left is making one last attempt to intimidate the Justices. The
latest effort includes taunting Chief Justice John Roberts that if the Court overturns any of the law, he'll forever be defined as a partisan
"activist." Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy recently took the extraordinary step of publicly lobbying the Chief Justice after oral
argument but before its ruling.
Pressuring the Chief. Perhaps
there are better arguments for the law's constitutionality than those we have so far seen from its defenders. But some of
those defenders now seem to be dispensing with such arguments altogether. Instead they are threatening dire consequences
for the reputation of the Supreme Court and especially for Chief Justice John Roberts if he joins a majority of the justices to
strike down the individual mandate.
Is Obama bullying the
Supreme Court? While state legislatures and school boards around the country scramble to pass anti-bullying statutes,
President Barack Obama is doing his utmost to bully the United States Supreme Court into ruling in his favor, specifically on the
Affordable Health Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare. While this may sound like President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
circa 1937, it is President Obama, circa today.
Will Obama Try to Blow Up
the Court? There's no doubt the president will seek to demagogue the issue if the health care law is invalid and try to portray the
Court and the bill's Republican opponents as seeking to snatch medicine out of the mouths of sick people, babies and the elderly. That's a
tactic that has had some success when it comes to defending entitlements against reform efforts.
Lee: Justice Roberts' Obamacare ruling was 'a betrayal of his judicial oath'. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, was disappointed when the U.S. Supreme
Court upheld Obamacare. One year later — having thought about the case, gotten some distance from the issue, reviewed the ruling
opinion — he's confident of one thing: Chief Justice John Roberts engaged in "a betrayal of his judicial oath," one that amounts to "a
form of tyranny."
The Mandate Can Stay, Supreme
Court Says in Health Care Ruling. In a landmark ruling with wide-ranging implications, the Supreme Court today [6/28/2012] upheld the so-called
individual mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, the key part of President Obama's signature health care law.
The court ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional under the Constitution's commerce clause, but it can stay as part of Congress's power under a
taxing clause. The court said that the government will be allowed to tax people for not having health insurance.
The Supreme Court's Worst
Decision Since Kelo. Congress can, in fact, create a penalty instead of a tax, and the President can tell the nation it is not a tax, but
the courts can later decide Congress meant otherwise. Never mind that Congress made it clear it did not intend to impose the individual mandate to
buy health insurance as a tax. Never mind that the razor-thin majority by which Obamacare passed would never have existed if that majority had
known it was imposing a tax on every living American. Never mind that the case might not have made it to judgment until 2014 if it had walked into the
courthouse as an objection to a tax.
This Election Just Became About Obamacare.
In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare, the principal choice now facing Americans on November 6
will be whether to keep Obamacare or to repeal it. The question is a binary one, and the answer — expressed almost entirely through
their presidential vote — will go a long way toward determining the future course of this great nation.
In 5-4 decision, Supreme Court rules
Obamacare constitutional. The individual mandate in President Barack Obama's health care reform law has been upheld, as a tax, in
a 5-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the four-vote bloc of progressive
judges to uphold the sweeping law, after reinterpreting it as a tax-related law.
SCOTUS Obamacare ruling [is] a
crushing defeat for conservatives. [Scroll down] For conservatives, the verdict is a crushing disappointment. Yes, there
were some conservatives who predicted the Court would uphold Obamacare, but there were many who simply did not believe that a majority of justices
would hold that the Constitution's Commerce Clause supports an individual mandate to buy health insurance.
The Roberts Rules.
The Chief Justice ruled that ObamaCare's mandate violated the Commerce Clause, joined by the Court's conservative bloc, but
he also said that the mandate fell within Congress's power to tax, joined by the Court's liberal bloc.
America Fades, the World Gets Darker. The
Supreme Court's outrageous activism in reframing the government's defense of ObamaCare in order to save it dimmed a little further the flame that has long
stood as the world's only original source of illumination. While the loudest voices from around the world will hail this decision as evidence that
America is finally becoming "reasonable," some of us from abroad see America's fall as the death of hope, though masquerading as mere "change."
SCOTUS Exposes the ObamaCare Tax Lie.
Republicans can now, more than before, in unison, call for the repeal of the Mandate Tax on the grounds that it was sold as not a tax.
It was sold as a bill of goods. It was bait-and-switch, and the power-holders knew it all along. They knew all along that they had
authority to mandate as a tax, but they also knew they couldn't call it a tax for getting re-elected reasons.
The Chief Justice Done Good. First, almost completely
unnoticed, the Chief Justice voted with his four conservative colleagues in drawing an unprecedented red line against Washington wielding the
Constitution's Commerce Clause in the future to justify federal intrusion into the personal lives of Americans. This decision will restrict
American Presidents and future Congresses for a generation and more.
The supreme 'tax' that broke the
camel's back. The chief justice knows that the president has been running around denying that Obamacare is a tax, and he knows the
administration then called it a tax in its arguments before the high court. So, in essence, Roberts may have been sending a message to the
White House; you want a tax? You got it.
Today's Obamacare Decision: A Dissent.
My view of today's decision is somewhat different from that of most of my fellow conservatives. I found Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion
quite persuasive, based on current law and the familiar principle that a statute should be interpreted, if at all possible, in a manner that makes it
The Democrats Now Own Obamacare. Roberts got Obamacare
off on a technicality and turned it into a tax collection/IRS issue. All the happy talk about pre-existing condition coverage will fade.
Now the question will be: Who voted to raise taxes on the middle class?
Onward to repeal Obamacare. The Supreme Court
ruling on the president's health care plan resulted in a sad day for freedom, liberty and the American people. In an activist decision, the court
rewrote the foundation of the Affordable Care Act and then ruled it constitutional. But the effect on the American people will be the same:
We will lose our own personal choice in health care and see greater intrusion by an already out-of-control federal government into the lives of
Supreme Court ruling a temporary victory for
the administration. Chief Justice John Roberts ruled with the liberal wing of the court that the law's individual mandate, which requires
Americans to purchase or otherwise obtain health insurance or face a fine starting in 2014, was constitutional as a tax — not under the
Constitution's Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce "among the several states." President Obama did not want
the mandate to be labeled a tax because it amounts to a regressive tax on the middle class — something he wanted to avoid.
Rep. Gohmert: 'It's Time for the American People to Get
Outraged'. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said Thursday that 'It's time for the American people to get outraged," after the Supreme Court
upheld the Affordable Care Act mandate on all Americans to purchase health or pay a tax. The Texas Republican congressman and former judge also
said Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan "may need to be impeached" if she lied about her involvement in the legal defense of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (PPACA) — otherwise known as Obamacare — when she was Solicitor General in 2010.
Today's SCOTUS Decision Dooms Obama's
Reelection. Sure, the individual mandate was unconstitutional on the two arguments made by the Obama Administration. But, on the argument
they expressly didn't make — that the mandate was really a tax — the Court decided that Congress was well within its power to enact
the provision. So, its still the law of the land. But, today's ruling will probably go down in history as the most effective GOP voter turnout
operation ever. There is only one way to repeal ObamaCare and that is through the ballot box.
The silver lining? Now Obama owns his tax
hikes. [Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.] told President Obama and his kleptocrats in Congress that they can have their health care
law, but they cannot keep lying about it. A tax is a tax and they are liars if they call it anything else. And they just stuck the crippled
American taxpayer with one of the biggest, broadest, most regressive tax-hikes in history — and during a deep recession!
Why Roberts Did It. Obamacare is now
essentially upheld. There's only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new
Hello, November! Yes, the Supreme Court's
decision to uphold the health overhaul law is disappointing, but the final judgment on the law will be made by the voters in November. The
president must now spend the next four months defending a law that the majority of Americans dislike, and the more they learn about it, the more they
dislike it. Worse, the part of the law that is the least popular — the individual mandate — has now been declared a tax.
That's double jeopardy for the president: The unpopular mandate stands and now it is called a tax. And this is only one of the 20 new
and higher taxes in the law.
'Incredible Irony': Court Has 'Declared Obama
to Be a Monumental Liar'. "The incredible irony here is that in upholding Obamacare, Roberts et. al. have formally also declared Obama
to be a monumental liar," said L. Brent Bozell III, president of the conservative Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com.
"And in the most bizarre twist of them all, they upheld the lie by declaring this to be a tax. "Conservatives — Republicans —
can now campaign on the line of attack that a) this is the greatest expansion of power in history; b) this is the greatest
tax increase in history; and c) this is the greatest presidential deception in history.
The Supremes Get It Fundamentally Wrong. While much of the
speculation in the academic and media world was about Justice Anthony Kennedy as the possible swing vote, one of the lawyers in my office kept saying
over the past few months that Roberts was actually the weak link. Unfortunately, that prediction turned out to be all too accurate. By
upholding the individual mandate, the Court got it exactly wrong. They've issued a ruling with terrible implications for the future.
ObamaCare Ruling: Pure Fraud and No Due
Process. Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court decided that Americans have no right to due process. Indeed, the Court
not only upheld a fraud perpetrated on the public — it became a willing participant. The assessment charged for failure to comply with
ObamaCare's "individual mandate," which requires Americans to purchase health insurance, was presented to the country by the administration and the
Democratic Congress as a penalty assessed for lawlessness — i.e., for refusing to honor this new legal requirement.
It was strenuously denied by proponents that they were raising taxes.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in the
Court Decision. The Court got the Commerce Clause part right, but so what? They were never going to find the mandate within the
power of the Commerce Clause. The Court, on the other hand, disregarded the position of the government and read the law to be a tax, and therefore
within the power of the Constitution.
ObamaCare Ruling: Pure Fraud and No Due Process.
Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court decided that Americans have no right to due process. Indeed, the Court not only upheld a fraud
perpetrated on the public — it became a willing participant. The assessment charged for failure to comply with ObamaCare's "individual
mandate," which requires Americans to purchase health insurance, was presented to the country by the administration and the Democratic Congress as
a penalty assessed for lawlessness — i.e., for refusing to honor this new legal requirement. It was strenuously denied
by proponents that they were raising taxes. The Obama administration, in particular, was adamant that the assessment was a penalty, not a
tax: the president himself indignantly objected to a suggestion to the contrary in an ABC News interview with George Stephanopoulos.
Turning ObamaCare's Lemons into Federalist
Lemonade. Keep your heads up. Defenders of the health care law are going to continue to spike the football as if the Supreme Court
vindicated their ideas and repudiated conservative ones. But that is not what happened. In the long run, conservatives may have won more than
they lost. The court strengthened federalism by limiting the federal government's ability to coerce the states and establishing principled limits
to the scope of the Commerce Clause. These legal victories will remain in place long after the political branches repeal ObamaCare.
SCOTUS Ruling Means Bigger, More Intrusive
IRS. IRS officials on background tell FOX Business the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on health reform gives the IRS even more powers than
previously understood. The IRS now gets to know about a small business's entire payroll, the level of their insurance coverage — and
it gets to know the income of not just the primary breadwinner in your house, but your entire family's income, in order to assess/collect the mandated
Chief Justice Roberts: It's
Not A Tax, It Is A Tax; It's Law, But It's Not 'Unlawful' to Break It. In his deciding opinion in the cases challenging the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare), Chief Justice John Roberts first says the mandate in the law requiring individuals to buy health
insurance is not a tax. Then he says it is a tax. He upholds the individual mandate — as a tax, not a penalty — as
the law of the land. But then says it would not be "unlawful" for Americans to violate the law's mandate that they "shall" buy health
insurance — as long as they are willing to pay the "penalty" for not obeying the law.
Jindal: Ruling could
force people to eat tofu and drive hybrid cars. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said Thursday's "frightening" Supreme Court ruling could
lead to penalties for Americans whose lives are out of step with government priorities. On a call with reporters, Jindal said that the decision
to uphold the healthcare law as a tax is a "blow to our freedoms."
If The Amish Are Exempt From Obamacare Tax, Why
Isn't My Religion? James Madison, a beloved Founding Father of this country and the author of our Constitution once stated in an essay
titled "Property," that a man "has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them."
He also went on to say that a man has a right to his property, and a property in his rights. Freedom of religious conscious is our
right — a right clearly stated in the First Amendment of our Constitution. The first line of it reads, "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Supreme Court Forces U.S. To
Take A Giant Step Toward A Totalitarian Socialist Government. The United States of America took a giant step toward a totalitarian
socialist government when the Supreme Court voted to uphold Obamacare, allowing the individual mandate for the government to force American citizens to
buy health insurance whether they want to or not. The Supreme Court should have their title changed to the Supreme Proletariat because, they've
just done away with individual freedom and handed the president the ability to force the people of America to do whatever he decides they should do.
Not So Good News. I've read all the arguments,
some ingenious, for why the Roberts majority opinion is actually "good" in the long run. I don't buy that at all, and worry that rationalizing
defeats is no way to learn from them. From now on, the precedent has been established that U.S. citizens can be forced to buy a product that
government deems necessary — period. Who cares what a particular president on occasion deems to call it — tax, mandate,
whatever — at any given expedient time, or what a justice does to finesse that definition to protect implementation of the law?
The Damage John Roberts Has Done. It is, they
say, comparable to the ju-jitsu practiced by the first chief justice, John Marshall, in ruling for Thomas Jefferson's administration even as he
single-handedly raised the Supreme Court to a co-equal check-and-balance on the executive branch, something Jefferson detested, in the 1803
Marbury v. Madison decision. Roberts himself probably had Marshall and Marbury in mind as he crafted an opinion that seeks to limit
federal power even as it allows its expansion in this single case. Which does not change the fact that Roberts's reasoning is intellectually,
ideologically, and legally perverse — willfully so, in fact.
Rep. Allen West: 'Life,
Liberty & Pursuit of Happiness Got Struck Down' by Supreme Court. Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) says the government mandate on individuals to
buy health insurance is a tax only because the Supreme Court says that it is. "Well obviously it is, since the Supreme Court rules that it is,"
West told CNSNews.com on Thursday afternoon [6/28/2012]. "And I think it goes against what President Obama originally said that it wasn't a tax.
Planned Parenthood, NARAL
Welcome SCOTUS Ruling on ObamaCare. In response to Thursday's Supreme Court ruling that the president's signature healthcare law is
constitutional as a tax, the nation's abortion industry expressed pleasure at the outcome. [...] Planned Parenthood notes that as a result of ObamaCare's
newly declared constitutional status, beginning August 1st, "birth control will be treated like any other preventive prescription under the Affordable
Care Act, and will be available without co-pays or deductibles."
Roberts Hands a Poisoned Chalice to the
President. If the Supreme Court conservatives had voted down ObamaCare by a vote of 5 to 4 the liberals would not have
accepted it, any more than the pro-life movement accepts Roe v. Wade. There was only one way in 2012 to make a Supreme Court decision to
invalidate ObamaCare stick, and that would have been for Justice Kagan to join the conservative majority in a 6-3 decision. Why Kagan?
Look at the other three liberals: Ginsburg was a liberal ACLU lawyer; Breyer was a Kennedy staffer; Sotomayor an affirmative action
pick — liberal hacks every one. But Elena Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School and Solicitor General; she is the liberal
educated elite. Her vote to overturn would have been an admission from the educated establishment that ObamaCare was unjust and wrong.
A Vast New Taxing Power. The commentary on John
Roberts's solo walk into the Affordable Care Act wilderness is converging on a common theme: The Chief Justice is a genius. All of a sudden
he is a chessmaster, a statesman, a Burkean minimalist, a battle-loser but war-winner, a Daniel Webster for our times. Now that we've had more time
to take in Chief Justice Roberts's reasoning, we have a better summary: politician. In fact, his 5-4 ruling validating the constitutional
arguments against purchase mandates and 5-4 ruling endorsing them as taxes is far more dangerous, and far more political, even than it first appeared
The Awakened Giant Likes Tea. By inexplicably siding with the court's
left wing and upholding the president's signature achievement — government-run socialized health care — Roberts has given Democrats
a shiny election-year package adorned with a judicial-activist bow. The excessive celebration has begun. Nancy Pelosi immediately released a
statement gloating, "We made history. ... We completed unfinished business!"
Roberts did not change. Contrary to most that has been
written since Thursday's enactment of RobertsCare, Chief Justice John Roberts did not change. He has always been that way. Eight years ago,
when John Roberts was nominated, we were warned that he was a liberal jurist appointed by a RINO president, just as liberal David Souter was appointed by
the previous RINO president. Two articles in July 2005 by Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter foretold the Souter-like liberal jurisprudence of Justice
Roberts. We now know that Shapiro and Coulter were 100% correct.
'I have not decided' whether to call Obamacare mandate 'a tax'. Following the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the individual health
insurance mandate in President Barack Obama's health care law as a tax, California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters praised the court's ruling but told
The Daily Caller that she personally has "not decided" whether or not to call the mandate a tax.
Four People Who Tried to Save our Constitution.
Although the decision by 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices upheld Obamacare, read below how rational and right thinking justices tried valiantly to
uphold our infinitely more important Constitution. Tea Party and all conservatives now have our political marching orders to undo this monster
law, and here are the reasons summarized in the words of four justices about whom we should be proud.
Obama, Roberts, and the Left
Juristocracy. It was widely expected that Roberts would oppose using the Commerce Clause to allow Congress to do whatever it wanted, but
entirely unexpected that Roberts would give the same effective power to Congress through its taxing power, when the Obamacare legislation never
invoked that power or even the word "tax."
Farewell, Personal and Medical
Privacy; ObamaTax is Here. Though the liberal media mocked conservatives a couple of years ago, ridiculing their concern that the IRS
would be overseeing Americans' healthcare, the truth is the Obama administration had always planned to hire at least 4,500 new IRS agents, to the tune of
nearly $304 million, to make sure those Americans who failed to comply with the law's mandate to purchase insurance — Nancy Pelosi would
now call them "free riders" — would pay their ... er ... tax.
Grants ObamaCare The 'Power To Destroy'. "ObamaCare" — which will impose $800 billion in new taxes, add $2 trillion to
the national debt and raise health insurance costs by an average of $2,100 per family — is now poised to wreak havoc on a nation that's
already suffocating under high taxes, crippling deficits and a devalued dollar. Obviously this is a catastrophic outcome — yet it
pales in comparison to the long-term damage done by this decision.
A Tax Is a Tax Is a Tax. Whatever the mandate was before the
decision, and regardless of how strongly one disagrees with the ruling, it's a tax now.
The Court Breathes New Life Into
the Great Destroyer. In a little more than three years in office, President Obama has distinguished himself as the Great Destroyer of our
liberties through a comprehensive set of policies that are at war with the American idea and are succeeding in fundamentally transforming America, in
fulfillment of Obama's promise. Just in the past few weeks, we've witnessed multiple body blows against our freedoms, in areas ranging from
immigration to "Fast and Furious" to Obamacare to the economy to race relations to state sovereignty to our very social compact itself.
Chief Justice Roberts Taxes Credibility.
Let us stipulate that there's nothing wrong with a justice who starts out with one opinion but changes his mind as he reviews the facts and arguments.
Let us agree too that the reputation of the court is a legitimate concern of any justice. The fundamental difficulty remains: a labored lead
opinion that looks like a conclusion struggling for a rationale.
Government Wins Even ObamaCare Ruling's
'Silver Lining'. John Roberts' nonsensical, activist opinion upholding ObamaCare is even worse than it appears. First he claims
that the individual mandate is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. Next, to uphold the individual mandate, he claims that it is a
tax. Even tax-loving Democrats are denying Roberts' sole basis for upholding ObamaCare — that it is a tax. How curious!
Supreme Court Helps Obama
Fulfill Dreams from His Communist Mentor. Frank Marshall Davis, who lived from 1905 to 1987, mentored Barack Obama in Hawaii in the 1970s.
Davis was a devoted communist — pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin, and pro-Mao. His Communist Party number was 47544. Davis did terrible,
blatant propaganda work for the international communist movement. [...] Among those columns, Frank Marshall Davis wrote a piece on July 21, 1955
calling for taxpayer funding of universal health care. That column was published in the Honolulu Record, which was the Communist Party publication
for Hawaii. As Davis put it, he wanted to "see my tax dollars go to insure health care for everybody."
For conservatives, the question: Who
is John Roberts? [Scroll down] Now Roberts has given Obama the biggest court victory of his presidency. But to uphold Obamacare,
the chief justice had to execute logical twists and turns that left conservatives wondering what they really knew about him all along.
John Roberts and the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
I don't think it's quite sunk in yet on the Right just how awful the John Roberts Obamacare decision really is, or what nasty consequences will now flow
from it. Of course, it's a betrayal on the part of the chief justice, not only of the conservative constituency that put him into his lifetime, very
well paid sinecure, but of all Americans foolish enough to believe that we actually are a government of laws, not men. At one stroke, Roberts has
damaged his own reputation (ruined it, really) and that of the court.
Can Government Now Tax Handgun Ammunition
10,000%? Conservatives still reeling from Chief Justice John Roberts's decision to uphold the 2,700-page ObamaCare legislation as a
Federal tax are rightly worried that Roberts opened the door to unlimited Federal coercion of the American public through the tax code. One
possibility that should generate grave concern is that the Federal government could use to the tax code to undermine the Supreme Court's landmark
decisions affirming Second Amendment rights in Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago.
Well, It Worked, Didn't It? Spare me the
argument that Roberts, with the ghosts of 1937 tramping through his mind, was trying to "preserve the integrity" of the court. His jaw-dropping,
intellectually inconsistent, Kafkaesque ruling in the Obamacare case is likely to live in infamy, much like such earlier Supreme turkeys as the Dred
Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson. In both of those cases, as in this one, the Court took refuge in legal niceties and sophomoric
hairsplitting, refusing to acknowledge the greater moral issue and the looming national catastrophe.
Justice Roberts — Tragic Figure.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a good man who apparently thought he was doing the right thing, is increasingly taking on the character of a lone figure from
classical Greek tragedy. If one collates all the news reports, rumors, and scuttlebutt, and if they are mostly credible, one learns of his tortured
Good News — What Good News? I have read all the
exegeses of why Justice Roberts voted to tip the court in favor of upholding Obamacare. I do not here care to comment on the case other than to note
that the most radical piece of social legislation since the Great Society is now the law of the land. It may prove a boomerang in November; there
may be some clever means to detect in Roberts' decision a path for upholding judicial conservatism. In fact, there may be all sorts of hidden good
news. But for now, the decision is a huge victory for Barack Obama — how can it be any other?
The John Roberts Doctrine: Stopping at Red
Lights is Optional. Are you required to stop your car at a red light? In his opinion declaring Obamacare's individual mandate
constitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts constructed an absurd doctrine of legal interpretation that, if consistently applied, would hold you are
not. The Roberts Doctrine of Lawlessness can be summarized as follows: You need not stop at a red light as long as you can afford to pay the
penalty for running it. Red lights merely give motorists a "choice" of whether to stop or keep moving and pay the fine the government imposes for
The American Revolution Comes to a Pitiful
Close. For those not in the know, the highest court in the land — the historic mission of which was to guard against tyranny by
ensuring that laws passed by Congress abide by the constraints imposed by our Constitution — has now rubber-stamped the most comprehensive
expansion of federal power since the New Deal.
John Roberts, Chief Sophist. If Roberts wants to be a
political philosopher, a law professor, or a politician, he is free to pursue those vocations. But if he wants to be a Supreme Court justice, he
should take those duties seriously. In mixing and matching his responsibilities — in embracing the title of one thing and acting like
another — John Roberts ended up as a sophist.
The Worst Ruling Since Dred Scott.
Last week Chief Justice John Roberts blatantly ignored the Constitution and the law and purposefully rewrote Obamacare in order to rule it legal.
He called Obamacare a "tax" instead of an individual mandate; he then proceeded to blithely expand the government's power to tax to encompass a tax
on breathing, which is what Obamacare is.
Obamacare and Abortion. The Supreme Court's controversial decision last week to
uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare is re-igniting the debate over the president's health care overhaul and public funding of abortions.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, told the Free Beacon recently that "there are a number of different
components in Obamacare that would expand abortion" as well as several provisions to fund abortion. Johnson explained that abortion funding "is
always included unless it's explicitly excluded."
Roberts wrote both Obamacare opinions.
This weekend CBS News' Jan Crawford reported that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote in regard to upholding the bulk of the Affordable
Care Act. Crawford reports that Roberts voted with the rest of the court's conservatives to strike down the individual mandate, but in the
course of drafting his opinion changed his mind, and ended up siding with the court's four liberals to uphold almost all of the law.
Obamacare's Hideous History, Recounted. [Scroll
down slowly] Twelfth, as has been well documented, the administration and Democrats had to argue first that the individual mandate's penalty was
not a tax (in order to round up congressional votes), then had to argue in some courts that it was a tax (for some purposes) and in other courts that
it wasn't a tax (for other purposes), and then have to use the "it's a tax" argument as a Hail-Mary afterthought in its Supreme Court argument even
while knowing full well that if they somehow won the case on that basis, they would immediately disavow in public the very argument they used to win
Liberals fear the John Roberts rebound.
Liberals who celebrated the Supreme Court's decision on health care may be nursing an ugly hangover after the justices dive back into their work this
fall, with a docket likely to be loaded with controversial cases. And left-leaning courtwatchers are already worried about the jurist who
brought them such relief last week: Chief Justice John Roberts.
The Mandate Represents What's Wrong With
Democrats. The individual mandate is the apotheosis of the modern Democratic party's way of doing business. In particular,
it is the quintessential example of how, hiding behind a smokescreen of egalitarian rhetoric, the party has become deeply, perhaps hopelessly,
anti-republican, happy to dole out favors to privileged groups while the rest of the country is left with nothing.
War! America is now at war. It is a civil war, but no shots will be
fired. It's a war over the Constitution, yet it will be through the Constitution that the winner will be determined. The opponents in this
war are not Republicans against Democrats. This war is between the American people and their government. Some of the American people,
though, will choose — have chosen — sides with the government. Too many Republicans have sided wrongly in this war.
They justify their choice by calling themselves "compassionate conservatives," and such.
Obamacare and the death of liberty.
In a Rasmussen Reports poll released Monday [6/25/2012], 54 percent of voters said they would like to see the health-care law repealed; this
number has been over a majority for a year and reached past 60 percent much of the time since passage. The court's ruling couldn't be more
clearly against the will of the majority of the American people.
SCOTUS and the Collapse of States'
Sovereignty. The continuing destruction of state sovereignty has been accompanied by the jettisoning of the First Amendment
and its guarantees, with churches and church institutions being forced to bow to federal intrusion and authority. The demolition of
the Bill of Rights firewall protecting individuals from the predations of their own government and the evaporation of the distinctions
among the three branches of government are yet two more profoundly disturbing consequences.
Judicial Betrayal. John Roberts is no doubt a
brainy man, and that seems to carry a lot of weight among the intelligentsia — despite glaring lessons from history, showing very brainy
men creating everything from absurdities to catastrophes. Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many
by the village genius.
The 'Oprahfication' of America. [Paul]
Rothstein said Roberts had good health care when he needed it and that "He was probably thinking about the millions of people who are less fortunate
than he is." Rothstein said Roberts needed to land on "the right side of history and morality" and these, too, probably influenced his vote.
Notice in all of this there is nothing about the Constitution. And what's this about morality?
The seduction of Chief Justice
Roberts. The much-anticipated operation was a brilliant success, but the patient died. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
is a clever surgeon, and he left a bloody mess to prove it. He's in the Mediterranean now, on the island of Malta, lecturing to
European lawyers about how to "grow" in office, basking in the applause of fans of the welfare state. Some of our most intellectually
resplendent pundits and academics are applauding, too. They're calling him the dancing master of "finesse," the lord of the "physics
of American politics," the genius of the conservative attempt to move judicial review back to the center.
Chief Justice Roberts' Dred Scott Moment.
[Scroll down] Judge Roberts' decision will produce a comparably deleterious outcome. His unconstitutional decision on Obamacare
mandates the slavery of the American people to the U.S. government, forcing us to make health care decisions in accord with government fiat.
Further, the taxes will prove so prohibitive as to enslave the people and make all productive Americans wards of the federal government.
"To be a socialist," said Joseph Goebbels, "is to submit the I to the Thou. Socialism is sacrificing the individual to
the whole." Is that not what Obama is doing?
Into Kagan's Role in ObamaCare. Representative Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) is calling for an investigation of Justice Elena
Kagan, arguing that her prior service as solicitor general should have disqualified her from participating in last week's decision on
the constitutionality of ObamaCare, a law she helped craft and defend as a former member of the Obama administration. On Friday [7/6/2012]
Gohmert, a member of the Tea Party Caucus, delivered a speech from the floor of the House insisting that as the government's top litigator
Kagan surely would have advised the President on the possible legal challenges that his healthcare reform legislation would face.
If not, says Gohmert, she would have been the "worst solicitor general in history."
Supreme Court's Word
Game Saves ObamaCare. Chief Justice John Roberts's opinion holds that the penalty for not complying with the mandate is
both a tax and not a tax — depending on the question. If the question is whether someone may sue to strike down the mandate, the
court says yes, because the penalty is not a tax. Under the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (first passed in 1867 but since updated), one
may not ask for an injunction against a tax before it has been enforced. One must wait to be taxed, request a refund from the IRS,
and if turned down, then sue the government. In the ObamaCare case, the Court denied such an attempt to have the challenge dismissed
by declaring the penalty not a tax. But only for purposes of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act. It was another story when the
question was whether the mandate is constitutional.
Obama's revolutionary Supreme
Court. We now live in post-constitutional America. The rule of law has been replaced with arbitrary centralized
government. The republic is dead. It has been strangled by President Obama and the Supreme Court. Upon its
ruins, a socialist state is being erected. This is the real meaning of the court's recent decision to uphold Obamacare.
The court majority, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., declared the president's signature health law valid.
It is a major victory for Mr. Obama. His health care overhaul now has the high court's stamp of approval. If he
wins in November, nothing can stop its implementation.
decision didn't open floodgates for 'compulsion through taxation'. Memo to Mitt Romney: Obamacare is a tax
because the Supreme Court rewrote the law to make it one. The Supreme Court did not uphold Obamacare's individual insurance
mandate as a tax. This is a difficult legal distinction to explain, but one that matters nonetheless. In Obamacare, the
mandate was called an "individual responsibility requirement." To "save" the rest of Obamacare, the Supreme Court deleted
the "requirement" part. So the mandate is gone. What's left is a tax.
Turncoat Roberts. The bottom line is that
Chief Justice Roberts' traitor vote will ensure more monumental spending and wasted taxes and put almost 15 percent of the nation's
gross domestic product (GDP) under one of the world's most bureaucratic, ineffective, incompetent and grossly expensive systems ever
devised by man: our out-of- control federal government. Chief Justice Roberts squandered the opportunity to restore judicial,
financial and legislative sanity to a government that by any sane person's standards is insane and addicted to centralized federal
control of our lives.
The Tax Man Cometh To Police You On Health Care.
The Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of President Barack Obama's health care law will come home to roost for most taxpayers in
about 2½ years, when they'll have to start providing proof on their tax returns that they have health insurance.
John Roberts: Bribery or blackmail? What explains Chief Justice
Roberts' conversion from one who had decided to strike down Obamacare to a justice who dishonestly twisted and perverted the law to uphold it as
constitutional? [...] Given real-world realities, you have to ask whether Roberts was bribed or blackmailed into precipitously turning tail and
casting his lot with the socialists.
Repeal of Obamacare Is Way More Than Symbolic. I don't believe that the GOP repeal vote was merely symbolic, even
though everyone knows that the obstructionist Democratic Senate, which hasn't produced a budget for more than 1,100 days, will
reject it out of hand. The House vote to repeal, which included five Democratic votes, helps to frame a critically
important issue in the 2012 presidential and congressional campaigns, which is also true of the House's passage of "cut,
cap and balance" and Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan, "The Path to Prosperity."
Court decisions against Obamacare
Obamacare's Ozymandian Ruins.
All the sound and fury produced by the Democrats last week about impeachment drowned out a useful lesson concerning their
last great act of legislative hubris. On Wednesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals declared Obamacare's insurance
mandate unconstitutional, and on Friday, President Trump signed a budget package that repeals three of that law's most
outrageous taxes. These are just the latest fragments to fall on the growing pile of debris lying at the foot of
Obamacare's crumbling edifice. The ruins already contain dozens of provisions repealed by Congress, struck down by the
courts, or rescinded by executive order. If you are frowning at your screen, wondering why the hated mandate is being
relitigated when Congress has already eliminated its penalty, this is just the latest attempt to reconcile the tortured
reasoning of Chief Justice John Roberts with the Constitution and common sense.
Obamacare's Ozymandian Ruins.
On Wednesday [12/18/2019] the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals declared Obamacare's insurance mandate unconstitutional and,
Friday, President Trump signed a budget package that repeals three of that law's most outrageous taxes. These are just
the latest fragments to fall on the growing pile of debris lying at the foot of Obamacare's crumbling edifice. The
ruins already contain dozens of provisions repealed by Congress, struck down by the courts, or rescinded by executive order.
everyone was focused on impeachment, 5th Circuit cut the legs out from under Obamacare. A year ago almost to
the day, we reported that a Texas federal judge (1) held that the Obamacare individual mandate was unconstitutional after
Congress repealed the mandate tax (which was the justification for the Supreme Court upholding the mandate in 2012), and (2) the
mandate was not severable from the rest of the law, so the entire law fell. It was a full defeat of Obamacare[.]
finds Obamacare mandate unconstitutional, sends case back to lower court. A federal appeals court on Wednesday
[12/18/2019] struck down Obamacare's individual mandate in a decision that immediately thrusts the health care law to the
forefront of the 2020 elections. However, the appeals court ruling largely ducked the central question of whether the
rest of the Affordable Care Act remained valid after Congress removed the penalty for not having health insurance. The
three-judge panel instead sent the case back to a Texas federal judge, who previously threw out the entire law, to reconsider
how much of Obamacare could survive.
Three Major Obamacare
Taxes Bite the Dust. House Democrats, forced by a budget deadline to divert a little energy from impeachment to
their primary legislative function, have reluctantly negotiated a spending agreement with congressional Republicans and the
White House. The bill, which must be passed by the Senate and signed by the president before federal funding runs out
this weekend, contains some good news for Americans facing ever-increasing medical expenses. It permanently repeals
three looming Obamacare taxes: the medical device tax, the tax on premium (Cadillac) health plans, and the health
insurance tax (HIT). All three were unpopular and would have increased health-care costs.
Round of Strange Bedfellows on Severability in Texas v. U.S.. Earlier today [4/1/2019], I joined three
other academics — Nicholas Bagley, Abbe Gluck, and the VC's own Ilya Somin — in submitting an amicus
brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Texas v. U.S. explaining how Judge Reed O'Connor bungled
the severability analysis when concluded that the alleged unconstitutionality of an uneforced individual mandate requires
invalidation of the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA). To the contrary, under existing severability doctrine, Judge
O'Connor should have left the rest of the law completely intact.
DOJ Just Delivered A Major Blow To Obamacare. The Department of Justice on Monday [3/25/2019] sided with U.S. District Court Judge
Reed O'Connor's previous ruling that the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare, is unconstitutional. Judge O'Connor's
ruling came in December but the DOJ is just now solidifying the decision. According to O'Connor's December ruling, the ACA's individual
mandate is unconstitutional, which makes the entire piece of legislation invalid.
Voters Side With
Judge Who Nullified Obamacare. One day after Nancy Pelosi and her modest but all too real Democratic majority
in the House of Representatives voted to interfere in Texas v. United States, the lawsuit in which Federal Judge
Reed O'Connor ruled Obamacare unconstitutional, a new survey found that nearly six in ten registered voters want O'Connor's
ruling to stand. Of that number, 27% say the law should be eliminated so we can return to the way things were before
Obamacare was shoved down our unwilling throats, and 31% agree that it should be invalidated so it can be replaced by a
program that works.
Texas Judge Doubles
Down on Obamacare Ruling. Over the holiday weekend, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor issued an order
reiterating his December 14 decision to strike down Obamacare. As expected, he also stayed enforcement of his ruling to
allow time for a challenge in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals by a group of Democrat-controlled states led by California
Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Most "news" reports focused exclusively on the stay, which comprises one page of the
document, while ignoring twenty-nine pages that Judge O'Connor devotes to a detailed elucidation of his previous ruling.
and American Jurisprudence. On December 14, Judge Reed O'Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas ruled that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, despite the fact that the Supreme Court had twice ruled that the
ACA is constitutional. What's changed is that the 2017 tax law "eliminated" the Individual Mandate. And because
the mandate is its central funding mechanism and is not severable from the rest of the act, the whole shebang must be tossed
on the scrapheap of history. However, those who think the ACA a very bad piece of legislation shouldn't get their
Federal Judge Finally Exposes The Lies At The Heart Of Obamacare. No serious person has ever doubted that the
individual mandate was unconstitutional, because no possible reading of the Commerce Clause could support such an outlandish
scheme. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia noted during oral arguments before the Supreme Court in 2012, if the government
can force you to buy health insurance under the Commerce Clause, it can also force you to buy broccoli, or a car, or pretty
much anything. Allowing the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause powers would give Congress unlimited authority
to regulate almost every aspect of our lives.
Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. Friday evening [12/14/2018], a federal Judge issued a ruling that Obamacare
apologists have been dreading since Texas v. United States was filed by 20 states in the Northern District
of Texas early this year. U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor agreed with the plaintiffs that the Affordable Care Act's
individual mandate was rendered unconstitutional when Congress reduced its tax-penalty to zero. He further agreed with
their assertion that the mandate is not severable from the rest of the statute. Consequently, Judge O'Connor declared
the entire health care law invalid.
Now What? "Compromise has an incredibly small constituency," retiring Representative Trey Gowdy reflected in a
parting-thoughts interview with Fox News Channel's Martha McCallum. He lamented a prevailing, partisan mindset that it
only takes 51 percent to govern. Entering Congress by riding the Republican wave that followed the passage of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act without a single GOP vote, Gowdy in some sense owes his congressional career to
the hyperpartisanship he laments. But that congressional career coinciding with the inability of his party to win over
Democrats to repeal Obamacare during his tenure shows that one-way-street legislating eventually becomes a two-way street,
with the closed-mindedness of one side begetting closed-mindedness on the other side.
judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act. A federal judge in Texas struck down the Affordable Care Act
on Friday night [12/14/2018], ruling that former President Barack Obama's signature domestic legislation has fallen down like
a losing game of "Jenga." But the White House said that with the ruling expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Court, the law will remain in place for now. U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth sided with the argument
put forward by a coalition of Republican-leaning states, led by Texas, that Obamacare could no longer stand now that there's
no penalty for Americans who don't buy insurance.
Good Riddance to Obamacare.
Is there anybody currently breathing who actually understands the details of Obamacare? Nancy "You Have to Pass It in
Order to Understand It" Pelosi certainly didn't and I doubt she does now, even as she presumably ascends once more to speaker
of the House. Maybe Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel — the putative architect of the ACA — does, but he
was about as intelligible as a Martian speaking Sanskrit when trying to explain it on television.
judge in Texas strikes down ObamaCare. A federal judge in Texas on Friday [12/14/2018] struck down the
Affordable Care Act, throwing a new round of uncertainty into the fate of the law just one day before the deadline to sign up
for coverage for next year. U.S. District Court Judge Reed O'Connor ruled that the law's individual mandate is
unconstitutional, and that because the mandate cannot be separated from the rest of the law, the rest of the law is also
invalid. The ruling is certain to be appealed, and legal experts in both parties have said they ultimately expect the
challenge to the health law will not succeed. ObamaCare will remain in effect while the case is appealed.
good! Another blow to the nightmare of Obamacare. Bit by bit, like the monument to Ozymandias chipped
away by shifting desert sands, the Obamacare monolith is coming down. Friday, a Texas court struck down the law as
"unconstitutional" based on Congress repealing the individual mandate in 2017. Rick Moran wrote about it [elsew]here.
For those of us stuck in the individual market with no choice but to buy the hellish Obamacare, that's a relief.
Wins Key Obamacare Lawsuit. A federal appeals court has handed the Trump administration a major victory by
ruling against an insurance company whose lawyers claimed the taxpayers owed it $214 million in Obamacare subsidies.
Moda Health Plan had sued the government, claiming that it was owed the money pursuant to the law's "risk corridor" program.
The Trump administration argued that it couldn't legally disperse the funds because doing so would have violated an explicit
congressional requirement that this particular subsidy program remain budget neutral. A three-judge panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the Trump administration.
Another Major Case Against Obamacare. In a decision that has gotten almost no media attention, six states led
by Texas have won another round against the Obama administration implementation of Obamacare. On March 5, Texas federal
Judge Reed O'Connor threw out the Obama administration's imposition of a federal fee or tax on states as a condition of continuing
to receive Medicaid funds. O'Connor ruled that the fee violates the nondelegation doctrine of the Constitution and the
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The 2010 Obamacare law imposed a "health insurance providers fee" on
medical insurers to help pay for the subsidies provided by the federal government to individuals purchasing health insurance.
However, the law specifically exempted states from having to pay this fee.
v. United States' Set Us Free From Obamacare? Ignore everything you have been told by the "news" media
about Texas v. United States, the lawsuit recently filed by 20 states challenging the constitutionality of
Obamacare. The Fourth Estate, in its all but official role as the public relations department of the Democratic Party,
has generally downplayed the suit as yet another futile attempt by fanatical Republicans bent on destroying former President
Obama's "legacy." Following their usual playbook for reporting constitutional challenges to the "Affordable Care Act" the
media briefly sneered about its merits and then, to paraphrase David Burge, "covered the story with a pillow." It is
nonetheless an important case and it's useful to review the basis on which the plaintiffs actually base their case against
the mandate: In 2012, a majority of the Supreme Court's justices — including Chief Justice Roberts —
rejected the government's claim that Congress could impose the individual mandate pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the
Constitution. Yet Roberts held that the mandate was still constitutional because its penalty was a tax
collected by the IRS to raise revenue. The plaintiffs argue that this "saving construction" evaporated when Congress
reduced the penalty to zero last year.
With Trump, Judge Clears Way for Trial Over Health Subsidies. A federal judge sided with the Trump administration
on Wednesday [10/25/2017] in a ruling against 18 states that sought to compel the federal government to pay subsidies to
health insurance companies for the benefit of millions of low-income people. "It appears initially that the Trump
administration has the stronger legal argument," Judge Vince Chhabria of Federal District Court in San Francisco wrote in the
ruling. He refused to issue a preliminary injunction requested by the states, leaving the dispute to be resolved in a
trial in his courtroom over the next few months.
Judge Backs Trump on
Obamacare Subsidies. [Xavier] Becerra was joined by 18 other Democrat AGs in a lawsuit, California v.
Trump, filed in the Northern District of California for the purpose of forcing the Trump administration to pay the
subsidies. Today [10/25/2017], in a 29-page ruling, Judge Chhabria sent them packing with a flea in their ear. On
Monday, the Judge presided over a 90-minute hearing in which he treated the attorney for the plaintiffs like a rather
slow-witted toddler. Judge Chhabria, an Obama appointee, pointed out such inconvenient fact that nearly all of the
states involved in the lawsuit had already ensured that the majority of enrollees would not be harmed by Trump's decision to
halt the payments.
judge rules Obamacare is being funded unconstitutionally. House Republicans won Round 2 in a potentially
historic lawsuit Thursday [5/12/2016] when a federal judge declared the Obama administration was unconstitutionally spending
money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress. Last year, U.S. District Court
Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of Representatives had legal standing to sue the
president over how he was enforcing his signature healthcare law. On Thursday, she ruled the administration is
violating a provision of the law by paying promised reimbursements to health insurers who provide coverage at reduced
costs to low-income Americans.
Courts Finally Get One Right On ObamaCare. The bad news for ObamaCare just got worse, as U.S. District Court
Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that the administration has been improperly paying for one of the subsidy programs. But
this case is about much more than how ObamaCare is financed.
GOP wins Obamacare lawsuit. In a major victory for Republicans, a federal judge ruled that the Obama administration
didn't fund Obamacare's subsidies properly. The judge said Thursday [5/12/2016] that the subsidy program will remain in place
pending an appeal. The win means that potentially millions of people could see their premiums rise as insurers lose subsidies
intended to help them pay down healthcare costs. It also gives Republicans a victory over what they deem "executive overreach"
by President Obama.
Obamacare Spending Ruled
Unconstitutional. Yesterday [5/12/2016], U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer dealt the Obama administration an
important defeat that will affect its ability to keep Obamacare afloat. The case, House of Representatives v.
Burwell, involves reimbursements the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been paying to insurers to keep
out-of-pocket costs artificially low for patients with incomes up to 250 percent of the federal poverty line. Congress
refused to appropriate the funds for this scheme, but HHS reimbursed the insurers anyway, whereupon the House sued the Obama
administration. Judge Collyer ruled that the payment of such reimbursements without congressional authorization
"violates the Constitution."
rules for House Republicans in ObamaCare lawsuit. A federal judge ruled Thursday [5/12/2016] for House
Republicans in a challenge brought against the Obama administration over the legality of payments to insurers under
ObamaCare. U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled the spending unconstitutional — while putting the
decision on hold pending appeal. The ruling Thursday [5/12/2016] marks a win for House Republicans who brought the
politically charged legal challenge, and a legal setback for the administration.
Supreme Court temporarily allows religious groups not to cover birth control. The Obama
administration faced a fresh challenge to its health-care law just as many of its key provisions took effect Wednesday, after an eleventh-hour
Supreme Court ruling temporarily allowed some Catholic groups not to cover birth control in their employee health plans. The requirement
that employers cover contraception and related medications and procedures has been one of the most controversial parts of the Affordable Care Act, leading
to dozens of lawsuits from groups that say it violates their religious freedom. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue this year.
Ruling by Supreme Court Justice
Sotomayor sets off another battle over Obamacare. Advocates for a Denver-based congregation of Catholic nuns on Wednesday applauded
an eleventh-hour order by Supreme CourtJustice Sonia Sotomayor to temporarily block a requirement under the Affordable Care Act to insure birth
control procedures, but attorneys and analysts agreed the fight is far from over. The complicated politics of Obamacare were on full display
on the first day of the year as a key component of President Obama's health care law was put on indefinite hold at the last moment by a Catholic
court justice whom Mr. Obama himself named to the high court.
Priests for Life on Staten Island gains temporary reprieve from
Obamacare mandate. An emergency injunction granted on New Year's Eve in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C.,
circuit means that Priests for Life in New Dorp need not obey the Obamacare contraception mandate during the appeals process. Priests
for Life will not have to cancel health insurance for its employees, as the Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, had
threatened. Father Pavone expressed gratitude that his organization does not face steep fines for the mandate which went into effect
on Wednesday as part of the Affordable Care Act.
Justice delays health law's birth control
mandate. Only hours before the law was to take effect, a Supreme Court justice on Tuesday blocked implementation of part of
President Barack Obama's health care law that would have forced some religion-affiliated organizations to provide health insurance for
employees that includes birth control.
That Injunction In Favor of Religious Liberty. Congratulations and thanks to my friends Rob Muise and Dave Yerushalmi
at the American Freedom Law Center. They worked tirelessly and down to the 2013 wire to persuade the DC Circuit to issue
the injunction Kathryn posted about last night. That ruling prevented the Obamacare mandate from going into effect —
i.e., from coercing religious believers, against the tenets of their faiths, to provide coverage for abortifacients and contraceptives.
Judge Strikes Down Obamacare Abortion Mandate. A federal judge in Huston ruled today [12/27/2013] that two Texas Baptist
institutions, East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University, are not required to provide abortion-causing drugs to their
employees under Obamacare, 1200 WOAI news reports. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the institutions,
says it has now won 9 out of 12 cases which have come before the federal courts challenging the so called 'Obamacare
mandate,' that employer-provided health care provide access to abortion drugs and contraceptives.
Baptist universities win lawsuit against controversal HHS mandate. On Friday (Dec. 27) a Houston federal court
delivered a major blow to the controversial HHS mandate ruling in favor of East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University.
In a 46-page opinion, the court ruled that the federal mandate requiring employers to provide employees with abortion-causing drugs and
devices violates federal civil rights laws, and issued an injunction against the mandate. Religious plaintiffs have now won injunctions
in 9 out of 12 such cases involving non-profit entities challenging the mandate.
Catholic Diocese gets relief from contraception mandate. A federal judge in South Bend has provided some last minute relief
to a host of Catholic entities across northern Indiana. A preliminary injunction blocks enforcement of the so-called "contraceptive
mandate" in the federal government's Affordable Care Act. As a result, the University of St. Francis in Fort Wayne now has what the
University of Notre Dame was denied: Court ordered protection for employees from the contraception mandate due to take effect January 1st.
Obamacare smackdown. Yet another federal jurist has
determined the White House unlawfully infringed on religious freedom with its blinkered insistence that Obamacare health insurance policies must be identical,
no matter what. Brooklyn Federal Judge Brian Cogan rebuked the administration for ordering two New York Catholic high schools — Cardinal
Spellman in the Bronx and Monsignor Farrell on Staten Island — to provide contraception and sterilization coverage to employees. Standing for
American tradition, Cogan also neatly exposed as a sham the Obama administration's scheme to pretend the government was not compelling faith-based organizations,
such as the high schools, to violate their core beliefs.
The Nuts and Bolts of the ObamaCare Ruling.
The Obama administration attempted to cloak an unprecedented and unsupportable exercise of federal power in
the guise of a run-of-the-mill Commerce Clause regulation. When the weakness of that theory was exposed,
it retreated to the Necessary and Proper Clause and the taxing power.
White House attempts to stall Supreme Court consideration. Obamacare on
life support. The Obama administration this week tried to buy time for its legal defense
of its health care takeover legislation. This move merely delays the inevitable, as everyone knows
the Supreme Court will decide the ultimate fate of Obamacare. Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T.
Cuccinelli simply wants to skip the irrelevant step of waiting for the case to wind its way through the
court of appeals. Two federal district judges already ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional,
and Mr. Cuccinelli believes it makes no sense for states and businesses to waste time and money implementing
a law that the Supreme Court may very well end up throwing out.
Judge Rules Against ObamaCare, Calls Individual Mandate Unconstitutional. Justice Roger Vinson
of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola ruled today [1/31/2011] that the primary mechanism used by the health
reform legislation to achieve universal insurance coverage — the individual mandate —
is illegal. If his ruling stands it would void the 2,700 page, $938 billion health reform bill
passed last year.
Obama's words against him. In ruling against President Obama's health care law, federal Judge
Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama's own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other
ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.
AG Declares Obamacare 'Dead'. In light of Judge Roger Vinson's ruling that Obamacare is
unconstitutional, Wisconsin's attorney general, J. B. Van Hollen, has declared the Badger State
free of any obligations imposed by the law. "Judge Vinson declared the health care law void and stated
in his decision that a declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction," Hollen says in a
statement. "This means that, for Wisconsin, the federal health care law is dead — unless and
until it is revived by an appellate court."
ObamaCare Is No Longer A Law.
Already bruised and unpopular, ObamaCare has now been issued a death sentence. Yet the White House says
it will "proceed apace" with its implementation. Has anyone there heard of checks and balances?
Never Say Sever.
Roger Vinson wasn't the first federal judge to rule that ObamaCare's "individual mandate" was unconstitutional,
and there's a good chance he won't be the last. If the Supreme Court were to uphold ObamaCare, it would
mark a radical expansion of congressional power. The court would have to find that Congress's authority
"to regulate Commerce ... among the several States" is so vast as to permit the enactment of laws forcing
individuals to transact business with private companies.
Another Licking. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Pensacola, Fla., minced no words in his
decision yesterday that declared ObamaCare unconstitutional. "Never before has Congress required
everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing
in the United States," wrote Judge Vinson.
Too big to stop? Obama's overhaul
lumbers on. Most insurers, hospital executives and state officials expect they'll keep
carrying out President Barack Obama's health care overhaul even after a federal judge cast its fate
in doubt by declaring all of it unconstitutional.
moratorium needed for Obamacare until its constitutionality is decided. President Obama's
signature legislative "achievement" plunged deeper into legal limbo Monday with a decision by a Florida
federal judge ruling the entire law unconstitutional. This follows the Dec. 13 Virginia court
invalidation of the central component of the president's health care reform law requiring individuals to buy
health insurance. Both decisions hinged upon the constitutionality of the individual mandate.
This individual mandate "exceeds the boundaries of congressional power" and would "invite unbridled federal
police powers," U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson wrote in his 42-page December opinion.
Obamacare: Down, but by no
means out. Yesterday [1/31/2011], all 47 Senate Republicans came out in support of Sen.
Jim DeMint's bill to fully repeal Obamacare. This means that every single congressional Republican,
House and Senate, is now on record in favor of full repeal. As for the Democrats, only three House
Democrats are on board, having voted in favor of the full repeal bill when it passed the House two weeks
ago. No Senate Democrat has endorsed full repeal ... yet. It is hard to see how a major piece of
social welfare legislation that is supported only by members of one political party (the Democrats) and
opposed by 100% of the other party (the Republicans) — and also opposed by 60% of the American
people — can stand.
of cards. Judge Vinson's lucidly written and cogently argued decision, which approvingly cited
the Federalist Papers, John Marshall and the Tenth Amendment, seized upon the Democrats' arrogant decision to
not include a "severability clause" in the legislation — which would've allowed the rest of the
2,000-page law to stand even if parts of it were to be found unconstitutional.
Unconstitutionality of ObamaCare in Black and White. United States District Court Judge Roger
Vinson has ruled that ObamaCare's individual mandate is unconstitutional and that, since removal of the
mandate would make ObamaCare a fundamentally different act than the one that Congress passed, its removal
must invalidate the entire 2,700-page overhaul.
strikes down healthcare reform law. A federal judge in Florida struck down President Barack
Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul as unconstitutional on Monday in the biggest legal challenge yet to
federal authority to enact the law.
Judge Vinson: ObamaCare 'Must Be Declared Void'. Florida-based federal judge Roger Vinson struck
down the year-old health care law, ruling that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority to require
individuals to buy insurance. In a challenge by 26 states, Vinson ruled that "because the
individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."
Vinson did not issue an injunction to block ObamaCare.
Judge Strikes Down Entirety of Obamacare. Vinson's opinion is a summary judgment, meaning
there are no disputes on matters of fact between the states and individuals comprising the plaintiffs and the
federal government. At issue are pure matters of law: the constitutionality of the individual mandate
under the Commerce Clause, and of the unfunded Medicaid expansion under the Spending Clause, Ninth, and Tenth
Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional. A U.S. district judge on Monday [1/31/2011] threw
out the nation's health care law, declaring it unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause and
surely reviving a feud among competing philosophies about the role of government. Judge Roger Vinson, in
Pensacola, Fla., ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires
people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.
Reagan's Legacy Judge Vinson Skewers
ObamaCare. The high-handed arrogance and disdain which Obama handles most matters of state has
undoubtedly caught him flat-footed and without a suitable retaliation. He is most likely shocked that a
mere District Court judge would rule against the almighty messiah of the ruled classes, which is nearly everyone
beneath his lofty station. You can be assured that he will handle this with as much tactlessness as he
has done in other challenged situations, to wit; issue a directive over-ruling the decision and passing
instructions to carry on as before.
Obama has a Very Bad Day. There
is no way Obama can breath life into that horrid overhaul of Medicare that pulled trillions out of it while
adding millions more Americans to it. No where in the Constitution does it say that the government can
require you to buy insurance, a hamburger, or even a lottery ticket.
'death panel' for Obamacare. Fourteen months ago, a reporter asked then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi if
the Constitution allows the federal government to force people to have health insurance. Amazed, she
answered, "Are you serious?" It's looking more serious all the time: Yesterday, federal Judge
Roger Vinson ruled the entire Obama health law unenforceable. Vinson's decision won't take effect until
a higher court rules. Indeed, the case will surely go all the way to the Supreme Court, with a final
word likely before the 2012 presidential election. But there's a solid chance that the whole ObamaCare
law may be null and void.
Roger That! Ian Gershengorn, the government lawyer charged with defending ObamaCare in State
of Florida v. U.S. Department Health and Human Services, probably knew he was in for a shellacking when
in a December hearing Judge Roger Vinson started talking about broccoli. The basis of Florida's
challenge to ObamaCare is its claim that the law's requirement that all Americans buy health insurance is
unconstitutional because Congress has no legitimate power to impose such a mandate.
drubbing for Obamacare. In a rigorously reasoned decision that seemed to delight in turning the
government's arguments on their head, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson on Monday struck down as
unconstitutional President Obama's signature legislative achievement, the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, aka Obamacare.
admin vows to continue implementing health care law despite ruling. Obama administration
officials are vowing to continue implementation of the president's health care law "apace" despite a second
ruling that the law is unconstitutional, calling the decision by Judge Robert Vinson "a plain case of
judicial overreaching" well outside mainstream legal thought. "We don't believe this kind of judicial
activism will be upheld," said Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter in a blog post published at WhiteHouse.gov.
v. HHS Could Become a Landmark for Individual Liberty. Florida v. Health and Human Services,
if upheld by the Supreme Court, could go down as an important landmark in the history of American liberty.
But that's a big "if." Most people expected Judge C. Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Florida to rule that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, based on his
questions and comments during hearings on the case. Less expected was his decision to overturn the
2010 health care law in its entirety.
ObamaCare Suffers A Coronary In Florida.
Pensacola judge Roger Vinson has struck down the "individual mandate" of ObamaCare, ruling it unconstitutional.
In concert with the ruling by Judge Henry Hudson of Virginia in December, it would appear this central provision
of the President's health-care takeover will be forced to fight for its survival in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The individual mandate is an indispensible lynchpin of the ObamaCare scheme. Not even its most blinkered
defenders can carry water for it, unless the mandate is included.
Moment. Federal Judge Roger Vinson opens his decision declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional with
[a] citation from Federalist No. 51, written by James Madison in 1788. His exhaustive and erudite
opinion is an important moment for American liberty, and yesterday may well stand as the moment the political
branches were obliged to return to the government of limited and enumerated powers that the framers
envisioned. As Judge Vinson took pains to emphasize, the case is not really about health care at all,
or the wisdom — we would argue the destructiveness — of the newest entitlement.
Can't Be Reconciled. Another federal judge has declared the Democrats' overhaul to be unconstitutional.
A law that should have never been passed is that much closer to being dismantled.
The Politics of
Saving 'Granny'. ObamaCare has recently been dealt three body blows. Speaker John Boehner
pushed a bill to repeal it through the House. GOP leader Mitch McConnell will get to put Senate
Democrats on record with a vote on repeal as well. And this week, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson
declared the law unconstitutional. The White House's reaction is dismissive.
Cannot Be Implemented Without a Court Stay. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that the administration
is prevented by the court's ruling from further implementing the law. ... [Under Judge Vinson's ruling], the
law is void and cannot be implemented from this point forward. The Administration's legal remedy is to
seek a stay of the ruling pending appeal. It cannot just defy a federal court ruling. If it tries,
the plaintiffs should go to court for the injunction and/or seek an order of contempt against the administration.
Pretending that the ruling doesn't change anything when it unequivocally does, would be both a petulant and
extra legal approach to governance.
Invites Crisis If He Ignores Ruling. The decision by federal judge Roger Vinson striking down
President Obama's signature health care law effectively ends ObamaCare unless some higher court overturns it.
In spite of this overwhelming rebuke of the law, some Birkenstock-wearing legal analysts are trying to argue that
Vinson's ruling could be ignored by the administration.
Revisited. "At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is
needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled 'The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act,'" Judge Roger Vinson observed Monday in his ruling in Florida v. HHS, which did just
that. It would have been a lot harder had ObamaCare enjoyed wide political support. But it did
not and does not.
Judge Vinson's Madisonian Vision vs. ObamaCare.
The decision itself, as Judge Vinson points out, is not really about our health-care system at all. It
is principally about our federalist system, he writes, and "it raises very important issues regarding the
Constitutional role of the federal government." While Vinson's decision covers a lot of ground —
including Medicaid expansion, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the evolution of Commerce Clause
Jurisprudence — the core purpose of the decision is to set some outer limits on federal action.
Because of the novel way the Obama administration is justifying the individual mandate, it would be virtually
impossible to argue that there is anything that Congress is without power to regulate.
Our Ford Pinto health
care law takes a hit. After this week's decision striking down the entire federal health care
law as unconstitutional, the White House went into a full convulsive rage at Judge Roger Vinson of the
Northern District of Florida. Borrowing an attack that has more often been heard from Republican
administrations, Stephanie Cutter, a senior adviser to President Obama, issued a statement denouncing
Vinson as a "judicial activist."
without limit is a hallmark of Obamacare. The commerce clause originally was intended to
eliminate the interstate trade barriers that existed under the Articles of Confederation. Yet since the
New Deal — at least up until the time of Chief Justice William Rehnquist — it has been
expanded upon so that it has given license to almost anything a congressional majority has wanted.
A congressional majority even was permitted by the Supreme Court to prohibit a farmer from growing on his own
farm wheat for his own consumption. Now along comes Judge Vinson arguing that the commerce clause
applies only to "clear and inarguable activity," not clear and inarguable inactivity.
Administration Should Enforce Obamacare Anyway. Following a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
on the constitutionality of the new health care law, Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
told CNSNews.com that the Obama administration should continue enforcing the health care law despite federal
judge Roger Vinson's ruling that it is unconstitutional.
takes on more water. In a classic YouTube moment, now former Illinois Democratic Rep. Phil Hare
looked squarely into the camera and summed up his party's approach to governing thusly: "I'm not worried
about the Constitution on this." When now former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked about the constitutionality
of Obamacare, she incredulously replied, "Are you serious?" Full steam ahead! Yes, Mrs. Pelosi,
Americans indeed are serious about the Constitution. So is Florida federal District Judge Roger Vinson,
who last week struck down the entirety of Obamacare as unconstitutional. Iceberg ahead!
Obama Admin Ignores
Ruling Against ObamaCare. Less than a day after federal Judge Roger Vinson's sweeping ruling
striking down the entirety of ObamaCare as unconstitutional, the federal government has announced its
intentions to move ahead with implementation of the law anyway.
Judge Vinson's Bittersweet
ObamaCare Ruling. Ruling that the ObamaCare insurance mandate is unconstitutional is like saying
that water is wet. Of course it's an unconstitutional abuse of federal power. If the feds can force
people to buy health insurance, there is virtually no limit to the reach of federal meddling into the affairs
The other side fires back... Democratic
attorneys general defend health reform law's legality. Eight Democratic attorneys general have
issued a statement defending the constitutionality of the healthcare reform law and vowing to move ahead with
its implementation after a federal judge struck it down Monday. The statement reiterates some of the
law's benefits for consumers, and points out that only two federal judges have ruled against the mandate
that everyone buy insurance.
The Editor asks...
How many federal judges' decisions would it take to change their minds? What part of the Constitution
authorizes anything and everything as long as it has "benefits for consumers"?
Obamacare on the Ropes.
When U.S. District Court judge Roger Vinson struck down President Obama's health care program as unconstitutional,
the White House declared the decision an "outlier." It was anything but that. The ruling on
January 31 was in harmony with limits the Supreme Court has imposed on the use of the Constitution's
commerce clause to justify far-reaching legislation by Congress. And it came as the assault on
Obamacare has expanded to many fronts — the courts, Congress, statehouses, the small business
community, and the grass roots, where tea parties and the small-government movement are energetic.
Notes on Judge Vinson's
Opinion. Yesterday I finally got around to reading Judge Vinson's 78-page (!) opinion in which
he held that Obamacare was unconstitutional. I am not a Constitutional lawyer, nor do I play one on TV
(that would be fun, though!). In addition, there's already plenty of analysis out there in the media,
from lawyers and non-lawyers. Still, I think the opinion is worth reading and worth talking about, if
only to spread the word that more and more smart people believe Obamacare is unconstitutional, and thereby
add to the case for the legislation's eventual repeal.
White House Says It
Will Implement ObamaCare Despite Judge's Declaration. White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs told
CNSNews.com today that the administration will "rightly" continue to implement the Obamacare law even though
the federal judge who sided with 26 states in declaring it unconstitutional said that his ruling was
"the functional equivalent of an injunction" against the law.
who makes RomneyCare/MassCare's waiver decisions. Before there was Obamacare, there was
RomneyCare/MassCare. Before there were Obamacare waivers, there were RomneyCare/MassCare waivers.
And just as the SEIU Purple Army is smack dab in the middle of exempting itself from Obamacare, it is smack
dab in the middle of deciding who does and who doesn't have to follow the RomneyCare/MassCare rules in the
Activism" Ploy. The new definition of "judicial activism" defines it as declaring laws
unconstitutional. It is a simpler, easily quantifiable definition. You don't need to ask
whether Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution. That key question can be sidestepped by
simply calling the judge a "judicial activist." A judge who lets politicians do whatever they want to,
whether or not it violates the Constitution, never has to worry about being called a judicial activist by the
left or by most of the media. But the rest of us have to worry about what is going to happen to this
country if politicians can get away with ignoring the Constitution.
President Stealth Strikes
Again. Memo to Judge Vinson: don't expect the executive branch to adhere to any laws as
declared by any court unless it comports with President Obama's agenda.
Obama Continues Spending
Taxpayer Money on Obamacare. A federal judge in Florida recently ruled that the entire health
care law is unconstitutional — a ruling Judge Roger Vinson described as "the functional equivalent
of an injunction." But that hasn't stopped the Obama administration from spending hundreds of millions
of dollars authorized by the disputed law.
Law Law Law Law Law.
Judge Roger Vinson's order last week declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional has prompted a pair of op-eds by
professors at elite law schools: Akhil Reed Amar of Yale, in the Los Angeles Times, and Laurence Tribe
of Harvard, in the New York Times. Both profs claim ObamaCare is constitutional. We were going to
write "argue" rather than "claim," but we think that may be too generous. Neither article is a serious
piece of legal analysis, because both professors simply refuse to take seriously the legal arguments on the
other side, even after those arguments have been accepted by two federal trial judges.
Law Is For Presidents Too. A federal judge has told the government it can't implement
ObamaCare because it's unconstitutional. Has the White House complied? No, it's knowingly
breaking the law.
Obama: Lost in Translation.
On February 2, 2011, his administration was found to be in contempt of court, for knowingly and intentionally defying the
court's injunction of its enforcement of a ban on oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. And just weeks before the
issuance of that contempt citation, a Federal court judge in Florida ruled ObamaCare is unconstitutional in its entirety.
In his order the judge held that his ruling was tantamount to an injunction, and he was proceeding on the well-established
presumption that government officials will conform their conduct to rulings. The President, whose oath of office requires
him to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution, nevertheless appears to have accorded the Florida judge's ruling the
same level of respect and compliance as he did the order enjoining his "moratorium" on oil and gas drilling in the Gulf.
A Bad Day For ObamaCare. In the most
spectacular news, Judge Roger Vinson clarified his earlier ruling on Thursday [3/3/2011], explaining that he did
indeed strike down the entire law as unconstitutional, so it can't be implemented against any of the 26 states
that were party to the suit he ruled on. Vinson was brutally dismissive of the Administration's delaying
tactics, and their attempts to ignore his ruling, questioning their comprehension and legal skills with dry wit.
Vinson delivers another blow to ObamaCare. When U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson
issued his ruling finding ObamaCare unconstitutional, liberals seemed to develop a reading comprehension
problem. He plainly stated that the law is unconstitutional, but defenders of ObamaCare seemed not
to grasp that the judge meant the government was obliged to follow that edict.
Uncertain Future. The Democrats' health care overhaul is taking hard hits as the first anniversary
of its enactment draws near. Is its demise just as imminent?
vital signs starting to fade. Obamacare is living on borrowed time, and even its most ardent
supporters are beginning to realize it. That's why they're racing to implement — and
entrench — as much of the plan as possible before the laws of economics and the laws of the
land and voters catch up. They're like a deadbeat renter starting a remodeling project after being
evicted but before the police escort them from the premises in hopes that it gives them squatter's rights.
Meanwhile, two unrelated but devastating events have caused the ground to shake beneath the feet of Obamacare
Bible Publisher Beats Obama Abortion-HHS Mandate in
Court. A federal court today stopped enforcement of the Obama administration's abortion pill mandate against a Bible publisher which filed a lawsuit
against it. The mandate has generated massive opposition from pro-life groups because it forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions,
to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy penalties.
Supreme Court: Another Chance to Kill
Obamacare. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media paid it little attention, but back in November the U.S. Supreme
Court shocked many in the legal community by granting Liberty Counsel's motion for a rehearing on its multi-pronged challenge to
Obamacare. The high court ordered the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear arguments. This is extremely rare
and means, almost certainly, that Chief Justice Roberts will get another bite at the rotten apple — this time, with
a whole new quiver of legal arrows.
Joseph company receives injunction from provisions in Care Act. Greg Hall is safe from government fines — for
now. The Catholic deacon who owns American Manufacturing Company in St. Joseph has received a preliminary injunction protecting
him from provisions in the Affordable Care Act. The injunction was issued Tuesday in the 8th Circuit of the federal district courts
by U.S. District Court Judge John R. Tunheim. In short, he won't have to start providing insurance that covers contraception,
sterilization or abortifacient drugs to his employees.
Court strikes down mandate for
birth control in ObamaCare. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — the second most influential bench in the land behind the Supreme
Court — ruled 2-1 in favor of business owners who are fighting the requirement that they provide their employees with health insurance that
covers birth control. Requiring companies to cover their employees' contraception, the court ruled [11/1/2013], is unduly burdensome for business
owners who oppose birth control on religious grounds, even if they are not purchasing the contraception directly.
An Anti-Birth Control
Employer Just Beat Obamacare in Federal Court. The D.C. Circuit Court has upheld a legal challenge to the provision of the Affordable
Care Act (Obamacare) that mandates employer coverage of birth control, arguing that it "trammels" the expression of religious freedom. While
the legal process over the issue isn't final, the decision hands a huge political victory to conservative activists that have long made this argument.
The case stems from a lawsuit filed by Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics, an Ohio-based firm that does food service work.
Obama suffers latest blow as part of health care law deemed unconstitutional. Barack Obama has
suffered yet another setback after a judge in Virginia ruled that a central part of his landmark healthcare
law was unconstitutional. Judge Henry Hudson refused to freeze the law, but his ruling will cast a
shadow over a reform that Mr Obama spent 18 months battling for and expended immense amounts of
political capital on. The ruling all but guarantees that legal arguments will proceed all the way
to the Supreme Court.
Judge Rules in Favor of Virginia's Central Challenge to Health Care Law. Casting an unmistakable
and perhaps permanent pockmark on the face of the Obama administration, a federal judge in Virginia ruled
Monday [12/13/2010] that a major component of the new health care reform law is unconstitutional.
Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled Monday for the state's claim that the requirement for people to purchase
health care exceeds the power of Congress under the Constitution's Commerce Clause or under the General
Federal Judge Shoots Down Part of Health Care Law. Richmond, Va., federal judge Henry Hudson has
issued a ruling finding part of President Barack Obama's health-care law unconstitutional. ... Specifically,
Judge Hudson invalidated the part of the landmark healthcare law that requires individuals to buy health
Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare
law. A judge in Virginia on Monday declared a key part of President Barack Obama's landmark
healthcare law unconstitutional in the first major setback on an issue that will likely end up at the Supreme
found unconstitutional by federal judge. Federal Judge Henry Hudson has found parts of ObamaCare
unconstitutional. Professor William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection highlights the principal elements of
the decision. He based his opinion on the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, rejecting the
government's argument it was a tax.
voids part of Obamacare. In a major setback for the Obama administration, a federal judge in
Virginia struck down as unconstitutional a key provision of the landmark health care law, saying that forcing
all Americans to buy health insurance "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."
Really 'Big Deal'. A federal judge ruled Monday [12/13/2010] that the mandate forcing
Americans to buy health care insurance is unconstitutional. Is this the first step in the collapse
decision striking down individual mandate is very big deal. Ezra Klein, the Washington Post's
blogging wunderkind, is a smart guy. He made his name becoming the go-to pundit for health care
policy. He understands health care policy as few do in D.C. But if you're looking for an
unvarnished opinion about the political realities of Obamacare, he's the last guy I would read.
Setback. Nationwide protests were "Astroturf." Polling was to get better once Congress
passed a bill. And the new law was supposed to boost Democrats' electoral chances in November.
Throughout their campaign for national health care, liberals tried to convince us that opposition was a joke,
only to be proven dramatically wrong each and every time. This Monday, a federal judge punctured
another liberal fantasy — that constitutional challenges to ObamaCare were frivolous exercises
that would be laughed out of courtrooms.
overreach. Federal District Court Judge Henry Hudson's ruling yesterday that Congress can't compel
Americans to buy health insurance ought to be required reading for Congress members. They take an oath to
uphold the US Constitution, but most members are ignorant of what the document says and routinely enact laws
without giving the Constitution a moment's thought.
ObamaCare is Now on the Ropes.
The decision of Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia v. Sebelius is no bird of passage that will easily be pushed aside
as the case winds its way up to its inevitable disposition in the United States Supreme Court. The
United States gave the case its best shot, and it is not likely that it will come up with a new set of
arguments that will strengthen its hand in subsequent litigation.
Health insurance mandate is unconstitutional.
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced today that the Commonwealth of Virginia won its lawsuit in federal
court challenging the constitutionality of the federal health care act. The attorney general asked the
court to find that the health care mandate that every individual buy government-approved health insurance
Obamacare is Terminally Ill. The
opponents of Obamacare have reason to rejoice. Yesterday's court decision struck a blow for individual
liberty and for restraint on governmental power over our lives. The progressives are on the defensive.
The judge to whom the New York Times is referring is Henry E. Hudson of the Federal district Court in
Richmond, Virginia. Judge Hudson ruled that the portion of Obamacare requiring virtually every U.S.
citizen to purchase at minimum a government-set amount of health insurance is unconstitutional.
Responding to a lawsuit brought by Virginia's Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, the judge
determined that the Constitution's Commerce Clause must have some "logical limitation" in order to prevent
unchecked Congressional power.
ObamaCare Victory. What Cuccinelli did in defeating (for now) the individual mandate actually
prevents an historically massive expansion of the federal government's audit and investigation powers.
If every American could be required to purchase health insurance, every American business or household would
be subject to federal audits to ensure compliance. With a law over 2,000 pages that even Nancy Pelosi
said needed to be passed before we knew what was in it, there assuredly would be lots of compliance requiring
audits of individuals, businesses, and even state government.
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the
laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."
You Committing Interstate Commerce by Doing Nothing? According to [President] Obama, the federal
government can make you do something if your failure to do it, combined with similar inaction by others, has a
"substantial effect" on interstate commerce. By rejecting that premise on Monday, U.S. District Judge
Henry E. Hudson took a stand for the principle that Congress may exercise only those powers that are
specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It's about time someone did. Over the years, the
Supreme Court, acceding to the legislative branch's power grabs, has transformed a provision aimed at
eliminating internal trade barriers into an all-purpose excuse for nearly anything Congress decides
if Obama's healthcare law required every American to buy a gun? Ken Cuccinelli has not been a
well-known public figure — until now. He's the attorney general of Virginia, who wasn't given
much chance of succeeding in his lonely legal challenge to President Obama's beloved healthcare legislation
designed to change whatever you believe in on that subject. But then, oops, Federal District Judge
Henry Hudson on Monday agreed with the Virginia AG, declaring a crucial part of the law unconstitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court should take the unusual step of bypassing various federal courts of appeal to consider
whether the "individual mandate" in Obamacare is unconstitutional. It's important that this action be
taken soon because implementation deadlines are looming for major parts of the law. Some provisions,
once in place, would be difficult to reverse.
Forced Obama health care unconstitutional.
Thank God a Judge in Virginia has just ruled that forcing people to have Government approved Health insurance
is unconstitutional. It goes beyond the boundaries of congressional power. Do ya think?
100 million tea Party people don't have a bunch of law degrees but we already knew and have been
screaming for months that this Health care bill was totally rotten and unconstitutional.
ObamaCare's Legal Setback:
Nationwide protests were "Astroturf." Polling was to get better once Congress passed a bill. And
the new law was supposed to boost Democrats' electoral chances in November. Throughout their campaign
for national health care, liberals tried to convince us that opposition was a joke, only to be proven
dramatically wrong each and every time. This Monday, a federal judge punctured another liberal
fantasy — that constitutional challenges to ObamaCare were frivolous exercises that would be
laughed out of courtrooms.
power: The courts and Obamacare. In a Washington Post column yesterday [12/14/2010], [Eric] Holder
predicted devastating consequences if challenges to aspects of Obamacare are "allowed to succeed." The
attorney general and co-author Kathleen Sebelius are sworn to defend the Constitution. But their essay
shows advocacy of administration policy is a higher priority. The cabinet members assert that anyone who
challenges the mandatory purchase of health insurance must propose another way to meet the goals of Obamacare.
Virginia Attorney General: If We Lose,
Government 'Will Be Able To Order' People To Buy Anything. Virginia Attorney General Ken
Cuccinelli told CNS News that the federal government will be able to "order" individuals to purchase any
product or service if the individual mandate in health care law is determined to be constitutional by the
Supreme Court. Federal judge Henry Hudson for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the
individual mandate was unconstitutional on Monday. Cuccinelli predicts that the case will
ultimately lie in the hands in the Supreme Court.
An Unhealthy Mandate.
During her confirmation hearings last summer, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was asked if the Constitution
empowers the federal government to pass a law requiring Americans to eat fruits and vegetables. What did
she say in response? She said, "It sounds like a dumb law." She said the commerce clause of the
Constitution "has been interpreted broadly." She said the courts have a duty to ensure that "Congress
doesn't go further than the Constitution says it can go, doesn't violate individual rights, and also doesn't
act outside its enumerated authorities." This is what she did not say: "No."
Hits an Iceberg. Federal Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled Monday in favor of Virginia's claim
that the requirement for people to purchase health care exceeds the power of Congress under the Constitution's
Commerce Clause or under the General Welfare Clause.
Why the mandate is
unconstitutional. Federal district court Judge Henry Hudson's recent decision striking down as
unconstitutional the "individual mandate" included in President Obama's health care bill is a step in the
right direction. Upholding the law would give Congress virtually unlimited power to mandate anything it
wants and undermine constitutional restraints on federal power. The mandate requires most Americans to
purchase government-approved health insurance plans by 2014. Its constitutionality has been challenged
in several lawsuits brought by 21 states and various private groups. Judge Hudson's ruling
addressed a case brought by the state of Virginia.
tear down this law. Mr. President, the centerpiece of your domestic agenda, the health care
overhaul that bears your name, has just been declared unconstitutional. I celebrate this victory for
freedom and for limited government, and I invite you to consider the opportunity it offers you. To be
precise, it was the individual mandate to purchase insurance that was determined to exceed the letter and
spirit of the Constitution. But this ruling threatens the entire edifice of Obamacare because that
mandate is the central linchpin of the Affordable Care Act. In the simplest of terms, the goodies
Obamacare promises depend on the money brought in by compelling young, healthy Americans to purchase more
insurance than they need.
not get last word in health care fight. Even if the Supreme Court ultimately agrees that
government cannot require individuals to carry health coverage, the Obama administration could borrow
a strategy that Medicare has used for decades to compel consumers to join new insurance groups.
Rules Obamacare Mandate Goes Beyond Letter and Spirit of the Constitution. In the most
significant decision to date involving the numerous challenges to Obamacare, a district court today ruled in
favor of the Commonwealth of Virginia's challenge, and declared the individual mandate portion of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. The fact that the decision is based upon cross
motions for summary judgment means among other things, in simple English, that the parties have had two major
hearings and two sets of merit briefs before the Court, which has now issued its second major opinion (and
this is leaving aside a slew of motions decided by the court). The decision, accordingly, is the most
well-developed of any court yet to address the matter, and therefore should cause quite a bit of indigestion
for defenders of Obamacare.
Court Rules Obamacare Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional. In Virginia today, Judge Henry
Hudson released his ruling around noon in the case of Commonwealth of Virginia vs. Sebelius, a case against
President Obama's health care law, finding the individual mandate within that law unconstitutional.
Hudson found in favor of the Commonwealth, writing that the provision of the law which mandates minimum
essential coverage "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power." "Salutary goals and
creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers," Hudson wrote.
powers. Legitimate police powers include the government's authority to regulate what people
can and cannot do. Federal authority is limited by enumerated powers granted to Congress and what it
deems necessary and proper to effect laws, but only consistent with the rest of the Constitution.
Under [Judge Henry] Hudson's opinion, Congress may not compel Americans to purchase a product.
Understanding what follows from the police powers increases appreciation for the ruling.
It's Winter for
Poland and ObamaCare. ObamaCare is now under attack on two fronts. By a vote of 245-189,
the House yesterday approved the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act. A day earlier, as the
Associated Press reports, six more states — Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin and Wyoming —
joined the lawsuit in Florida federal court seeking to overturn ObamaCare. This brings the total number
of state-government plaintiffs to 26, which is nearly half of the 57 states and a majority of
27 of 50 States Now
Challenging Constitutionality of Obamacare in Court. More than half of the states —
27 out of 50 — are now challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare in federal court.
Six additional states — Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin and Wyoming — petitioned in
federal court on Tuesday [1/18/2011] to join Florida's law suit challenging the constitutionality of the
health care law President Barack Obama signed last March. Nineteen states had previously joined with
Florida in this suit, making the total number of states that are now a party to the suit 26.
Obama's Insurance-Buying Mandate in Health Care Struck Down by U.S. Judge.
The insurance-buying mandate in President Barack Obama's health-care reform legislation is unconstitutional, a
federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled. U.S. District Judge Christopher C. Conner in Harrisburg today
[9/13/2011] said Congress exceeded its powers under the federal constitution when it included in the act Obama
signed into law last year a provision requiring almost all Americans to have medical insurance starting in 2014.
Place For Gov't. Another federal judge has ruled that ObamaCare's individual mandate is
unconstitutional. It's hard to see how a court could possibly decide any other way.