tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post8073305266567445569..comments2023-09-15T04:27:57.129-04:00Comments on Commentarama: Individual Mandates: A Legal "Bridge Too Far"AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-56524039776888384652011-02-02T17:28:19.404-05:002011-02-02T17:28:19.404-05:00Ed, Sadly, it's too late for some of the rest ...Ed, Sadly, it's too late for some of the rest of us! LOL!AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-18343060426698493692011-02-02T16:48:45.750-05:002011-02-02T16:48:45.750-05:00I hope to never reach the point where I can read l...I hope to never reach the point where I can read legal decisions.Ednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-11320258990181130142011-02-02T12:58:45.878-05:002011-02-02T12:58:45.878-05:00Patti, I'm glad you liked it! It is a great f...Patti, I'm glad you liked it! It is a great feeling when a judge agrees with you, and especially when the judge provides as thorough of a decision as this one. This was a well-reasoned, hard to attack decision and I think it gives us a lot of hope for the future of this issue! :-)<br /><br />Thanks for the link!AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-24694395136248516422011-02-02T09:22:20.104-05:002011-02-02T09:22:20.104-05:00oh andrew, when i read your legal analysis it give...oh andrew, when i read your legal analysis it gives me chills! (wait, was that creepy?! did i just cross a line?) i'm thrilled to read this first thing this morning. it'll give me a happy all day.<br /><br />gonna link tomorrow to go along with my "activist judge" entry. thx!Notawonkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15388997298014397980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-43337962409859831432011-02-01T23:33:51.722-05:002011-02-01T23:33:51.722-05:00USS Ben, Thanks! I'm glad you liked it! I kn...USS Ben, Thanks! I'm glad you liked it! I know how hard this stuff can be for people to understand, so I figured it was a good idea to break it down for everyone.<br /><br />Yeah, this is a pretty good feeling! Judge Vinson could eventually be the man most responsible for saving our healthcare system -- another plus to chalk up to Ronald Reagan! :-)AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-63157780313097311512011-02-01T23:03:49.403-05:002011-02-01T23:03:49.403-05:00Hurray! Thank you Judge Vinson!
Kudos Andrew for ...Hurray! Thank you Judge Vinson!<br /><br />Kudos Andrew for a well written and well researched post!<br /><br />I have nothin' to add but the schadenfreude is much sweeter knowing Judge Vinson is a Reagan appointee, LOL.USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-41936936906318674582011-02-01T21:29:11.975-05:002011-02-01T21:29:11.975-05:00Ed, It takes a while, but eventually you get tot h...Ed, It takes a while, but eventually you get tot he point that reading legal decisions is fairly easy. But they definitely aren't meant for the public at large. But that's why we're here!AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-17605865840336996502011-02-01T21:24:51.628-05:002011-02-01T21:24:51.628-05:00Good read! I like the result and I think the reaso...Good read! I like the result and I think the reasoning is sound. I don't know how the SOTUS can go the other way, but they often do disappoint me. I tried reading the decision because I figured it matter to my life, so it was worth knowing, but it's so damn difficult to read legaleze. Thanks for doing that for us!Ednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-18573393414108775422011-02-01T21:20:53.064-05:002011-02-01T21:20:53.064-05:00Jed, LOL! Obviously, the Supremes could go the ot...Jed, LOL! Obviously, the Supremes could go the other way, but I think the odds are strongly on our side now! :-)AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-9436519589170174822011-02-01T21:12:21.749-05:002011-02-01T21:12:21.749-05:00I note my comment on your May post {sic} a figurat...I note my comment on your May post {sic} a figurative online foot kiss. Well, a federal judge has, in fact, done so. However, since ultimately SCOTUS has to agree, I'll wait on all of the actions I outline until thenTennessee Jedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10604275115906776992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-62961806870660902932011-02-01T20:16:15.285-05:002011-02-01T20:16:15.285-05:00Joel, This still isn't over, though it's g...Joel, This still isn't over, though it's getting clearer that it's headed in our direction.<br /><br />In terms of ignoring the courts, that's generally very hard to do because people can simply ignore the act's requirements, just as states can ignore it. Thus, if he tries to enforce it, people can refuse to comply -- they can also sue the agencies to stop.<br /><br />The EPA issue you raise is a little different because they've simply read a statute as giving them more power than it really has, and I don't think the courts have ordered them to stop enforcing it yet -- to the contrary, the court said they could go ahead.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-63811618744215768482011-02-01T20:12:34.653-05:002011-02-01T20:12:34.653-05:00Thanks Crispy! I agree, if we had more judges lik...Thanks Crispy! I agree, if we had more judges like this, our court system would be as it should be.<br /><br />The problem with the pundits is that most of them don't know what they're talking about and they don't want to learn before opining. They just spit out whatever is easiest to say and then rely on (1) the fact that the public won't check up on them, (2) that journalists aren't smart enough to verify what they say, and (3) that the pundit community all play the same game and so they won't call each other on it.<br /><br />It's kind of a sad world when you have to go to a blog to understand what really happened! That's what the news used to provide!<br /><br />Of course, it also suits the purposes of the political types to make this simple and easy and within the themes they are trying to sell. The truth is rarely simple and easy to package.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-50343629113650840562011-02-01T20:08:54.804-05:002011-02-01T20:08:54.804-05:00Andrew,
I understand that the legal issue of Obam...Andrew,<br /><br />I understand that the legal issue of Obamacare has been resolved for now. I can't help but feel that Obama is going to ignore the court. Like the EPA has ignored the courts and Congress as well as the FCC.<br /><br />In other words, the rule of law will be flouted by the Obama Regime.Joel Farnhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15856960977033430002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-59235484157792479652011-02-01T20:04:33.661-05:002011-02-01T20:04:33.661-05:00Great article, Andrew!
The pundits have been sayi...Great article, Andrew!<br /><br />The pundits have been saying it went down all because of the severability clause, so it was nice to read a more in depth analysis than that.<br /><br />And I love this judge! Why can't we have thousands more like him?CrispyRicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07302075204880024936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-60128960483659260982011-02-01T18:57:57.255-05:002011-02-01T18:57:57.255-05:00T_Rav, That was my initial thought, but after read...T_Rav, That was my initial thought, but after reading this decision, I get the feeling this one may have changed the game even more for our side. This decision is devastating and I have yet to see a single Democrat who's been able to poke holes in it other than to call it "judicial activism."<br /><br />I've appeared before state Supreme Courts on several occasions and based on my experience, I can say with some certainty that this decision leaves nothing to argue on appeal except "we disagree," and that's a loser on appeal.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-78137255106973824472011-02-01T18:54:55.080-05:002011-02-01T18:54:55.080-05:00Stan, Courts actually rarely use your own words ag...Stan, Courts actually rarely use your own words against you in this context as they recognize that opinions change and rhetoric lacks substance. But in this case, the rhetoric by Obama and the Justice Department attorneys was so strong that pointing it out was appropriate. In other words, they were so openly hypocritical that it was impossible to ignore.<br /><br />But even better, this judge didn't rely on any of that rhetoric. He used it with devastating effect, but then he also backed up everything he said with other facts and a truly impressive grasp of the law. This was an impressive decision -- of the type you typically only see coming from Supreme Courts.<br /><br />Interestingly, I think the judge did this because (1) he knew the public was watching and so he spoke a lot to the public and (2) he worked hard to frame the issue for the Supreme Court. In fact, I'd say that his decision is head and shoulders above anything the attorneys produced and will be given considerable weight by the appellate courts.<br /><br />I agree with you and Pitts, it is frustrating, especially because it's so obvious. But unless we can find a way to squeeze liberals out of the court system, we will keep running into judges who don't understand that their role is to apply the law, not make the law.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-33525680392758281362011-02-01T18:49:48.463-05:002011-02-01T18:49:48.463-05:00Andrew, I think the most promising part of this is...Andrew, I think the most promising part of this is that we now have a split decision from the lower courts on the constitutionality of ObamaCare: 2 in favor, 2 against. Combined with the massive public outcry last year which STILL hasn't gone away, this will put that much more pressure on the justices--namely Anthony "Coinflip" Kennedy--to bow to the will of the people and overturn this. I think a 5-4 decision against the WH is very possible.T_Ravnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-44129758995865119632011-02-01T18:18:54.212-05:002011-02-01T18:18:54.212-05:00I love how this wiley old Southern judge used Barr...I love how this wiley old Southern judge used Barry’s own words against him, in a discussion in an ’08 interview calling an individual mandate un-Constitutional, his analogy to paraphrase, “it would be like ending homelessness by ordering the homeless buy houses.” Brilliant! I don’t know how pertinent that is in a court of law, but in the public square, devastating. As is pointed out by the judge this would allow the government unlimited powers, jerking our great land hard to the left. I heard an interesting caller on Rush today who made an interesting point that Barry does not want this to get near the SCOTUS, if his hallmark legislation gets struck down, his political career would be kaput. Rush quickly countered, not so fast, that an argument about the Constitution would be something Barry might relish, but I digress. But all in all it seems like an iron clad ruling and will be very tough to appeal.<br /><br /> I’m with Pitts on this whole damn thing, it pisses me off!StanHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07395708786509590321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-10801704383824407872011-02-01T17:54:38.327-05:002011-02-01T17:54:38.327-05:00Pitts, You ask a large question. The short answer...Pitts, You ask a large question. The short answer is ideology, and I mean that in two ways.<br /><br />In the first way, you have a difference of opinion about the role of the court. When you break it down, liberals think the role of the court is to decide if something is a good idea or not. If it's a good idea, then the court allows it. They are also firm believers in the court acting in an "equitable" (or "fair") manner.<br /><br />Conservatives, on the other hand, think the role of the court is to make sure that what the government is doing can be justified under the Constitution, and then to apply the law as written without regard to how "equitable" the result is.<br /><br />This has been the tension in the law since the earliest jurists, and it truly is a fundamental difference of opinion that will never be solved -- even though the liberal view is ultimately chaotic and destructive.<br /><br />But even beyond that fundamental disagreement, you get political considerations. Despite claims to the contrary, the Supreme Court has always considered the political implications of its decisions. And it's simply inconceivable that the liberal justices will allow such a cherished Democratic idea to be stopped. Thus, they will vote to protect this no matter what.<br /><br />Conservatives have at times done the same thing, particularly with regard to things like the Patriot Act, where they weren't going to interfere with the President's ability to fight a war on terror.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this is part of our system. It shouldn't be, but it is.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-21039682000040748922011-02-01T17:41:40.352-05:002011-02-01T17:41:40.352-05:00Lawhawk, That's very true and it bugs me to no...Lawhawk, That's very true and it bugs me to no end.<br /><br />Judicial activism has a clear meaning. It means when the courts go out of their way to find new rights that can't be found anywhere in the Constitution. In fact, DOJ argued for just such an example when they suggested that Vinson should open up the Necessary and Proper Clause and read it as a catch-all to allow anything.<br /><br />And over the past 50 years, judicial activism has disgraced itself -- people hate it. So as the left always does, they try to scramble the words to hide their actions. Suddenly, they're claiming that judicial activism is when courts do their job rather than letting the Congress do whatever it wants. That's not judicial activism, that's the job of the judiciary.<br /><br />Once again, liberals prove that they are liars.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-41077092345464058732011-02-01T17:38:46.752-05:002011-02-01T17:38:46.752-05:00"I think the Supremes will affirm this decisi..."I think the Supremes will affirm this decision on a 5-4 vote."<br /><br />I may be naive in asking this, but why should this be such a close vote? Shouldn't such a well-reasoned decision be supported almost unanimously? Or are the "liberal" justices just so completely activist and politically motivated that it is impossible for them to ever render a "just" decision? Again, I am probably very naive in even asking this question. *sigh*Pittsburgh Enigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06452716444698202766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-87506260643499444692011-02-01T17:34:23.485-05:002011-02-01T17:34:23.485-05:00Andrew: What's interesting about the lefties ...Andrew: What's interesting about the lefties crying "judicial activism" is they don't even know what it means. For fifty years we had to put up with umbras, penumbras and emanations from the Constitution being "found" by a high court creating "rights" that nobody had ever heard of before. That's judicial activism. This was a judge reading the Constitution, finding no constitutional basis for an unconstitutional act of Congress, and voiding the leftist social welfare overreach. That's called "conservatism" not "activism," but we'll never get the "living constitutionalists" to accept that. Hell, they can't even understand it, let alone accept it.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-1119447713832610012011-02-01T17:28:01.380-05:002011-02-01T17:28:01.380-05:00Thanks Joel. It should. I think Judge Vinson put...Thanks Joel. It should. I think Judge Vinson put together a well-balanced, well-reasoned, intensely researched, decision that is both fair, reasonable and entirely consistent with law and what the parties presented. This is one of those decision you get where you just know that you aren't going to get this thing overturned on appeal. It's too solid and it covers all the bases.<br /><br />Now that doesn't mean it can't be overturned, but the odds favor the decision standing on appeal.<br /><br />And I think the fact the Democrats are running around screaming "judicial activism" rather than pointing out whatever flaws they could find, tell you that they haven't been able to find a hole the decision either.<br /><br />So there is a lot of reason to hope.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-73300220018926130632011-02-01T17:15:44.129-05:002011-02-01T17:15:44.129-05:00Andrew,
Nice job. This does give me hope.Andrew,<br /><br />Nice job. This does give me hope.Joel Farnhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15856960977033430002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-91818168252836807312011-02-01T17:08:04.573-05:002011-02-01T17:08:04.573-05:00(continued)
What he eventually got to, which I th...(continued)<br /><br />What he eventually got to, which I thought was actually brilliant point, was that what Congress is doing here is trying to impose bad regulations on insurance firms and is only imposing this unconstitutional mandate as a way to subsidize the insurance firms.<br /><br />This particularly blows up on the defendants when he started talking about the Necessary and Proper Clause, because he notes that accepting the defense argument would give Congress a "perverse incentive" to make their legislation as destructive as possible, so that the unconstitutional part would be all the more necessary to balance what they did.<br /><br />This was a truly insightful decision.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.com