Florida Judge Rules 20 States Can Proceed w/ Lawsuit Seeking to Block Healthcare Overhaul

Source: Reuters

Judge sets December 16 hearing on healthcare suit

By Michael Peltier
PENSACOLA, Florida | Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:27pm EDT
(Reuters) - A Florida judge said on Tuesday he would hear arguments on December 16 on a lawsuit by 20 U.S. states seeking to block President Barack Obama's overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, who is weighing a motion by the Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuit, ordered the follow-up hearing on the lawsuit led by Florida and involving 19 other states, which was originally filed in March by mostly Republican state attorneys general.

Vinson said he would formally rule on the dismissal motion by October 14, but Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said the judge had already strongly indicated that the case would not be dismissed.

"The judge's apparent decision today means we will proceed," McCollum told reporters.

He was referring to what transpired during nearly two hours of arguments in Vinson's Pensacola courtroom on Tuesday. During the hearing the judge said he would likely reject "at least one" of the government's motions for dismissal of the case but he did not elaborate.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68D4K520100914

---

Follows August Virginia ruling.

...since it isn't actually fair to require voters to buy insurance from highway robbers?

If mandates go, insurers will ask for waivers for virtually every other aspect of the reform and will get them. And we'll have "reform" but no change.

Even the public option is not possible without mandates since people would wait until they need insurance before getting it. It may be possible to mandate a public option or alternate private option even if private insurance mandates are unconstitutional, but I don't think congress would be willing to try if this fails.

But I have a real problem with forcing people to buy insurance from the current players.

I knew you could. The phrase for tomorrow is activist judge.

War that was supposed to have settled that.

Oh well, the states that want it should get it and cash in on the benefits. It would be nice for some blue states to get the greater dollars for a change.

The ACA explicitly defines the mandate as a fine, not a tax, and is authorized under the commerce clause, and that is how the bill was passed and sold to the public.

The DOJ in it's filings for this case insisted that the mandate was actually was a tax, despite what the law said, and defensible under Congress' taxing authority.

The lawsuit will still fail since the mandate is a legitimate use of the commerce clause, but that was a pretty strange argument.

Source: Reuters

States can proceed with their lawsuit seeking to overturn President Barack Obama's landmark reform law, a Florida judge ruled on Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson had already indicated at a hearing last month that he would reject parts of a motion by the Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuit, led by Florida and 19 other states.

The suit was originally filed in March by mostly Republic state attorneys general.

In his formal ruling on Thursday, Vinson said the case would continue as scheduled. He had previously set a hearing for December 16.


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69D5CO20101014?utm_source=World+News&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Get rid of the health insurers altogether--let the profits go into the public coffers.

:headbang:
rocktivity

:shrug: I wonder if any of them understand why the people are upset with them?

The sooner the courts determine legitimacy the better. There are valid questions as to mandates on individuals and states that the court must decide. Until they are answered, it will slow implementation (governors block it, regulators aren't certain, legislators aren't in a hurry to fix it) and hinder businesses making hiring decisions (my company looks at 3-5 year costs of new employees, not just initial salary so we very much care what laws will be in effect in 2014).

If this case was turned down, states would rewrite it and go through it again. When this one is over I expect them to file a new one with any differences they can find. So it needs to move quickly.

:dunce:
:kick: & R

Even (perhaps especially!) if you believe that the US Government has the right to order citizens to buy products from private corporations you should welcome judicial review. :hi:

:evilgrin:
rocktivity