Judge Strikes Down *ALL* Of Obamacare

January 31, 2011
By

The most interesting thing about Judge Vinson’s decision is that, rather than grappling with the issue of Severability, he struck down the entire law! Quote:

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void.”

The Dems must really, really regret that, in their haste to ram Obamacare down our throats, they forgot to include a Severability clause.

UPDATE: Full opinion here. Money quote on Severability:

The question of severability ultimately turns on the nature of the statute at issue. For example, if Congress intended a given statute to be viewed as a bundle of separate legislative enactment or a series of short laws, which for purposes of convenience and efficiency were arranged together in a single legislative scheme, it is presumed that any provision declared unconstitutional can be struck and severed without affecting the remainder of the statute. If, however, the statute is viewed as a carefully-balanced and clockwork-like statutory arrangement comprised of pieces that all work toward one primary legislative goal, and if that goal would be undermined if a central part of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional, then severability is not appropriate. As will be seen, the facts of this case lean heavily toward a finding that the Act is properly viewed as the latter, and not the former.

The lack of a severability clause in this case is significant because one had been included in an earlier version of the Act, but it was removed in the bill that subsequently became law. ““Where Congress includes [particular] language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed that the [omitted provision] was not intended.”” Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23-24, 104 S. Ct. 296, 78 L. Ed. 2d 17 (1983). In other words, the severability clause was intentionally left out of the Act. The absence of a severability clause is further significant because the individual mandate was controversial all during the progress of the legislation and Congress was undoubtedly well aware that legal challenges were coming. Indeed, as noted earlier, even before the Act became law, several states had passed statutes declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional and purporting to exempt their residents from it; and Congress’’ own attorneys in the CRS had basically advised that the challenges might well have legal merit as it was ““unclear”” if the individual mandate had ““solid constitutional foundation.”” See CRS Analysis, supra, at 3. In light of the foregoing, Congress’’ failure to include a severability clause in the Act (or, more accurately, its decision to not include one that had been included earlier) can be viewed as strong evidence that Congress recognized the Act could not operate as intended without the individual mandate. Moreover, the defendants have conceded that the Act’’s health insurance reforms cannot survive without the individual mandate, which is extremely significant because the various insurance provisions, in turn, are the very heart of the Act itself. 

62 Responses to Judge Strikes Down *ALL* Of Obamacare

  1. Silence Dogood on February 1, 2011 at 11:45 pm

    string bet.

  2. Nate on February 2, 2011 at 1:47 am

    The entire 0bamacare act is ruled unconstitutional and the decision is binding on all parties. This much is certain.

    So, where are the history revisionist trolls to inform us that this incredibly strong court ruling against 0bamacare is exactly what they were planning all along? ? ? ? ? ?

  3. Steve on February 2, 2011 at 6:41 am

    *yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn*
    LNMT
    ____

    Yeah, You should really save that type of response for the most recent black-eye to Progressives since we now know that your liberal racist baby-killing organization “Planned Parenthood” has just been CAUGHT AGAIN on Videotape helping to setup child prostitution rings.

    I mean – that is the most common response from “Progressives” for news like this.
    …a heartless apathetic *yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn* is what we’ve come to expect from so-called ‘liberals’ whenever viable infant babies are stabbed in the back of the neck with scissors, or when innocent children are sold into vile sex slave trades to be brutalized and raped over and over again.

    Today’s modern Democrat Party in action. Now THAT’S Progress!!

    :roll:

  4. Henry Molaison on February 2, 2011 at 11:08 am

    “The entire 0bamacare act is ruled unconstitutional and the decision is binding on all parties. This much is certain.”

    Kind of funny, isn’t it? A Republican judge ruling that what is essentially a Republican plan is unconstitutional. Million dollars that he and the other Wingnut judges (who did NOT strike it all down) would never have ruled this way if your boy Baby Bush was still up there.

  5. Steve on February 2, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    “ruling that what is essentially a Republican plan is unconstitutional.”
    )))McWBH-4-brains(((

    Get those stupid talking points from DU or Kos did ya??

    Good luck trying to sell 0dumbshitCare as a “Republican” product you dimwit. Maybe your 5% fringe kook liberal wack-o will get on board with such idiocy (but not much more).

    So yeah, you’re an idiot. But we already knew this.

  6. Steve on February 2, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    Million dollars that he and the other Wingnut judges would never have ruled this way if…

    Wooow… Weeeelweeee? a million dollwaaas?
    — is that be similar to the other 2nd grader playground bets you’ve placed lately??

    Or are you just betting away other peoples money again like all idiot liberals do?

    Either way – you’re still an idiot.

  7. Henry Molaison on February 2, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    “Good luck trying to sell 0dumbshitCare as a “Republican” product you dimwit”

    “Sell it”? I’m here to rub your face in it, remember moron? I couldn’t care less whether you understand the issues or not b/c you obviously don’t. What you call Obamacare bears a striking resemblance to one proposed in the past by REPUBLICANS and in Romney-run Massachusetts.

    But why would you even know this….the Corporatist masters holding the leash to your dog-collar don’t want you to know this inconvenient FACT.

    FACTS are FACTS, remember dimbulb douchebag?

  8. Nate on February 3, 2011 at 12:12 am

    O’marxistCare was proven yet again to be unconstitutional and 100% completely thrown out, so the angry kos kiddies are here to “rub it in our face”??

    That’s priceless. Typical backward response from backward thinking and angry little kos kiddies.

  9. edward on February 3, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    Republican product???? That’s priceless…..

    Ding, ding, ding we have a new winner in the stupidest statement on the thread contest……

    Scheesh

  10. David Koch LOVES you idiots. on February 9, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    “O’marxistCare was proven yet again to be unconstitutional and 100% completely thrown out, so the angry kos kiddies are here to “rub it in our face”??”

    Yeah, dude, and you’re so totally like 100% uncool and completely stupid with your comments to think that one judge out of like 6 or 7 who ruled on so far somehow adds up to 100%.

  11. David Koch LOVES you idiots. on February 9, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    “Republican product???? That’s priceless…..”

    Yep, it is. A Priceless Republican Product.

  12. Adam on February 9, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    ^ McRock comes into a thread that’s been dead for 6 Days and his comments are so childish and stupid, that he STILL can’t win an agrument! (not even with himself)

    Now THAT’s Priceless!!!
    :lol:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *