Obama Health Care Lawsuit Rejected By U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2011 5:33 AM GMT
    Oh dear... This is the best anti-HCR lawsuit yet. What a bunch of morons...

    I do wonder why these judges keep deciding cases when, per certain folks on here, HCR has been nullified. icon_lol.gif

    Associate Press

    WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit claiming that President Barack Obama's requirement that all Americans have health insurance violates the religious freedom of those who rely on God to protect them.

    U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler in Washington dismissed a lawsuit filed by the American Center for Law and Justice, a Christian legal group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson, on behalf of five Americans who can afford health insurance but have chosen for years not to buy it.

    The case was one of several lawsuits filed against Obama's requirement that Americans either buy health insurance or pay a penalty, beginning in 2014. Kessler is the third Democratic-appointed judge to dismiss a challenge, while two Republican-appointed judges have ruled part or all of the law unconstitutional. Kessler wrote that the Supreme Court will need to settle the constitutional issues.

    Three of the plaintiffs – Margaret Peggy Lee Mead of Hillsborough, N.C., Charles Edward Lee of San Antonio and Susan Seven-Sky of West Harrison, N.Y. – are Christians who said they want to refuse all medical services for the rest of their lives because they believe God will heal their afflictions. They say being forced to buy insurance would conflict with their faith because they believe doing so would indicate they need "a backup plan and (are) not really sure whether God will, in fact, provide," the lawsuit said.

    The two other plaintiffs – Kenneth Ruffo of San Antonio and Gina Rodriguez of Plano, Texas – have a holistic approach to medical care and prefer to pay for their health services out of pocket, in part because insurance often doesn't cover their chosen methods of healing.

    The lawsuit argued that Congress does not have the power under the Constitution to require health care purchases and that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

    Kessler rejected both arguments and ruled that Congress has the right to regulate health care spending under the Commerce Clause and that the individual mandate must be viewed not as a stand-alone reform but as an essential part of the law Obama signed 11 months ago aimed at reducing overall costs. She also said that anyone who objects to having health care for religious reasons can choose to pay the penalty instead – as the lawsuit said all five plaintiffs plan to do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2011 2:38 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidDoesn't matter.

    As of this moment, there is no Obamacare law in effect. The Florida judge declared the whole thing unconstitutional.



    You just keep on believing that in the absence of any proof.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2011 8:16 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidDoesn't matter.

    As of this moment, there is no Obamacare law in effect. The Florida judge declared the whole thing unconstitutional.



    You just keep on believing that in the absence of any proof.


    How dense can one be?

    From CNN:

    But unlike another federal judge who ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional last month, Vinson ruled that the unconstitutionality voided the entire act.

    "I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system," wrote Vinson.




    And other judges in other federal courts have found the opposite, as this judge did.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2011 8:25 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidDoesn't matter.

    As of this moment, there is no Obamacare law in effect. The Florida judge declared the whole thing unconstitutional.



    You just keep on believing that in the absence of any proof.


    How dense can one be?

    From CNN:

    But unlike another federal judge who ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional last month, Vinson ruled that the unconstitutionality voided the entire act.

    "I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system," wrote Vinson.




    And other judges in other federal courts have found the opposite, as this judge did.






    OK, yes, I know I'm dealing with the liberal mind here, so let me try explaining it in simple terms for you:

    It's not a contest of who has more decisions in their favor.

    It just takes one decision to kill the law and that's it, the law is no longer in effect unless the Federal government is able to get an appeals court to hear the case.



    Sure. Just like it's illegal that the Wisconsin senators have left the state. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2011 8:43 PM GMT
    At what level does the judiciary have the authority to actually reverse a law?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2011 9:01 PM GMT
    the protests in Madison are mild to the protests you will see in Washington. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2011 11:58 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Upper_Canadian saidAt what level does the judiciary have the authority to actually reverse a law?


    It depends on the law, as there are state laws and Federal laws.

    But in the case of Obamacare, since it is a law passed by the Federal government, any Federal court can rule part or all of it unconstitutional, which immediately renders the law (or parts) no longer in effect.

    What's happening is that Christian and the other liberals know this, but they are attempting to spin this as the law is still in effect because it will ultimately end up before the Supreme Court and on it's trip to the Supreme Court, one of the higher courts will likely overrule the judge who ruled the law unconstitutional and the law will once again be "activated."

    But until that happens, Obamacare is not in effect.



    Actually, what Christian is saying is that since many features of HCR, including the mandate, aren't in effect and the administration is moving forward with implementation of certain parts of it, what one federal judge ruled based on a part of the law the isn't yet in effect.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2011 12:16 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Actually, what Christian is saying is that since many features of HCR, including the mandate, aren't in effect and the administration is moving forward with implementation of certain parts of it, what one federal judge ruled based on a part of the law the isn't yet in effect.


    But that one judge threw out the entire law.

    And yes, the Obama administration's vast bureaucracy continues to implement Obamacare, in direct defiance of a Federal judge. That's called, in nice terms, "against the law" and in not so nice terms, "anarchy."


    And the Governor of Wisconsin is trying to deny workers their constitutional rights to free association. What's your point?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 24, 2011 1:41 AM GMT
    So it's in effect?

    No.

    Is so.

    Is not!

    Is so!

    Is not!

    Is so!


    icon_lol.gif
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3287

    Feb 24, 2011 2:04 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    jprichva said
    There's no ambiguity here. Even southbeach's favorite corrupt judge stopped short of enjoining the act from being enforced, which he had the option to do. So the law is in effect, no matter what southbeach would like to be true.


    He didn't have to enjoin.

    He declared the entire law null and void.

    From page 76:

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


    From page 77-78:

    In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 150 Filed 01/31/11 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional.



    Until its taken by the Supreme Court we wont have the fringes convinced but in general with constitutionality, it only has to fail once.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Feb 24, 2011 2:26 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    musclmed said
    southbeach1500 said
    jprichva said
    There's no ambiguity here. Even southbeach's favorite corrupt judge stopped short of enjoining the act from being enforced, which he had the option to do. So the law is in effect, no matter what southbeach would like to be true.


    He didn't have to enjoin.

    He declared the entire law null and void.

    From page 76:

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


    From page 77-78:

    In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 150 Filed 01/31/11 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional.



    Until its taken by the Supreme Court we wont have the fringes convinced but in general with constitutionality, it only has to fail once.



    True. And if the decision goes against the liberals, the court will be "stacked with corrupt rabid partisans" and if the court decides in their favor the court will be "showing reason and respect for the Constitution." icon_lol.gif


    You mean like how you label a judge as an "activist" when the ruling runs contrary to your opinion on the matter? icon_rolleyes.gif