Judge Declares Obamacare Unconstitutional

 

Big breaking news out of Texas:

Obamacare was struck down by a Texas federal judge in a ruling that casts uncertainty on insurance coverage for millions of U.S. residents.

The decision Friday finding the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional comes just before the end of a six-week open enrollment period for the program in 2019 and underscores a divide between Republicans who have long sought to invalidate the law and Democrats who fought to keep it in place.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth agreed with a coalition of Republican states led by Texas that he had to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, the signature health-care overhaul by President Barack Obama, after Congress last year zeroed out a key provision — the tax penalty for not complying with the requirement to buy insurance. The decision is almost certain to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court…

Texas and an alliance of 19 states argued to the judge that they’ve been harmed by an increase in the number of people on state-supported insurance rolls. They claimed that when Congress repealed the tax penalty last year, it eliminated the U.S. Supreme Court’s rationale for finding the ACA constitutional in 2012.

The Texas judge agreed.

“The remainder of the ACA is non-severable from the individual mandate, meaning that the Act must be invalidated in whole,” O’Connor wrote.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 83 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    TBA (View Comment):

    This has ‘too good to be true’ written all over it.

    I will try to keep my hope and glee in check lest they be dashed.

    I stand with you on the attitude of hopes being dashed.

    After all, how hard would it be for Mueller to decide this Texas’ Federal Judge’s  decision came about due to Russian collusion?

    • #61
  2. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    Unsk (View Comment):
    The only way Roberts could sell the otherwise unconstitutional Obamacare monstrosity is to say it was a tax, even though those sponsoring the original Obamacare bill said over and over it was not a tax. Robert’s ruling and legal reasoning was unbelievably disingenuous. Talk about judicial activism – he introduced the idea

    New Justice Kavanaugh introduced that idea earlier.  Both he and Roberts will probably feel the need to defend what they helped birth.

    • #62
  3. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Rendering health insurance uncertain? Nay, this may actually render it legal.

    Not that the President seems interested in keeping it that way.

    I have difficulty with the whole “insurance” thing. Most health care payments companies today are not really insurers, are they? They’re third party payers, whose industry is boosted by government essentially subsidizing them through employer tax relief. No? In fact, the third party payer takes his cut ,too, thereby raising all the prices. And since thy pass their costs onto a clientele that is more and more under a monopoly system of employers and payers, they encourage costs to rise rather than drop.

    Amen.

    • #63
  4. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    This guy is insanely smart on the ACA. Brutal.

    Health care spending in the U.S. per capita and as % GDP far exceeds other rich countries yet our system is a disaster. Rent seekers will fight like hell whether the cost discipline comes from markets or government. That’s the real story and it isn’t widely discussed at all.

    What we should have done a million years ago was forced everyone onto direct primary care, straight indemnity catastrophic coverage, and a premium increase protection policy. The last one is sort of like whole life. You would still have to end up socializing somehow, but there would’ve been far fewer problems.

    How did we get into this mess? They didn’t wipe out employer-based insurance after World War II. There were other factors as well. Everyone wants to cartel-ize this crap.

    An emerging majority sees healthcare as a right and prefers that government guarantees coverage but I wonder whether that majority will prefer top down government cost control vs self discipline imposed by millions of choices in markets. One way or another we will find out.

    A national system will not be equal in any sense. The government system will be restrictive and rationed through mandates and queues. The wealthy will have a parallel system rationed only by money. In no sense will all healthcare outcomes ever be equal.

    I think of health insurance as a right like a nice cup of tea is a right: I have a right to buy it for myself if I want to.

    Obamacare literally made it illegal to exercise that right.

    • #64
  5. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    delete

    • #65
  6. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    https://spectator.org/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-unconstitutional/

    Excellent. This clears it up. The individual mandate still exists. The GOP Congress didn’t kill it, contrary to my misunderstanding; it only killed the tax penalty, leaving the mandate in place. Now that it’s not a tax, with the Roberts decision as a premise, the mandate needs to go. It is also unseverable logically and financially from the rest of the law, so the whole thing needs to go. It makes sense. A good ruling.

    • #66
  7. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    The individual mandate still exists. The GOP Congress didn’t kill it, contrary to my misunderstanding; it only killed the tax penalty, leaving the mandate in place.

    What does that even mean?  If there’s no penalty whatsoever for ignoring the mandate, in what sense is it really a mandate?  It’s more like a suggestion.

    Is there any precedent for Congress passing a law with no penalties or sanctions attached?  It seems almost intrinsic to the definition of a law that it specify some sort of punishment for violating it.

    • #67
  8. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    https://spectator.org/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-unconstitutional/

     

    To achieve that dubious goal, Chief Justice Roberts would have to execute a pirouette on the individual mandate. As Josh Blackman, Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law Houston, put it in his Friday evening summaryof O’Connor’s ruling: “The Court followed the reasoning of NFIB to conclude that the individual mandate, without the penalty, is unconstitutional.… O’Connor cites NFIB and King v. Burwell to show that the ‘Individual Mandate is inseverable from the entirety of the ACA.’” Roberts can only save Obamacare by reversing the opinions he issued on the last two ACA cases that reached SCOTUS.

    Or, Roberts could rule as follows:

    1. The mandate was a tax
    2. Congress repealed the tax
    3. Therefore, Congress also repealed the mandate, since “mandate” was just a code word for “tax”
    4. Therefore, ACA is (still) constitutional

    Whether you agree or not, mark my words: I predict this is how the Court will rule on the issue.  You heard it here first!

    • #68
  9. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Seems possible. He’s not a very good textualist or originalist, is he? The meaning of the law is just the legal structures it sets up, so the mandate is repealed when its penalty is repealed. (That’s how I think of how he thinks, but I’m no expert.)

    • #69
  10. Justin Hertog Inactive
    Justin Hertog
    @RooseveltGuck

    CarolJoy (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    This has ‘too good to be true’ written all over it.

    I will try to keep my hope and glee in check lest they be dashed.

    I stand with you on the attitude of hopes being dashed.

    After all, how hard would it be for Mueller to decide this Texas’ Federal Judge’s decision came about due to Russian collusion?

    LOL. Collusion is possible. We cannot rule it out. This has Putin’s fingerprints all over it.

     

    • #70
  11. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    This is the guy that found the Gruber video.

    Romneycare’s dirty secret:

    Mass didn’t pay for it- the Feds did w/taxpayer money secured by Ted Kennedy.

    Only now, w/Obamacare in jeopardy are the people of Mass going to learn that the law is based on a 4 legged stool, not 3. Somebody has to pay for all the free stuff.

    link

     

    • #71
  12. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    So now we have a situation where the right is trying to get rid of it, even if they’re being ham handed about it.

    The Republicans tried repeal, but one selfish, egocentric Trump-hater voted against repeal as personal payback to The Donald . . .

    • #72
  13. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Stad (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    So now we have a situation where the right is trying to get rid of it, even if they’re being ham handed about it.

    The Republicans tried repeal, but one selfish, egocentric Trump-hater voted against repeal as personal payback to The Donald . . .

    It makes me crazy. 

    It was passed unethically. What more does he need?

    • #73
  14. Songwriter Inactive
    Songwriter
    @user_19450

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    And then there’s the usual labeling of a judge as “conservative.” What does that mean, and does it matter? Should I care what a federal judge thinks about fiscal policy, tax policy, gun rights, or anything else besides how he thinks we’re supposed to figure out what the Constitution means?

    This is a side point – but an important one.  The MSM reports I’ve watched have all deliberately pointed out the judge is GW Bush appointee and a “conservative.”  I have never once heard any ruling from any judge ever ruled as being “liberal.” This is how the MSM selectively shades its reporting. So even as they give us the facts, they are also trying to tell us what is good and what is bad.  We poor listeners are not capable of drawing a judgement on our own.

    Similarly, reports (also from Texas) about death of an illegal immigrant child of seven (brought here by her father from Guatemala) while in custody are all focusing Robert “Beto” O’Rourke’s outrage, and smoothing over the fact that the child should have never been here in the first place.

    With the MSM, it’s as much about what they don’t tell us as why they do tell us.

    • #74
  15. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The guy that found the Gruber tapes is just killing it on Twitter today.

    But NOW that a TX Judge has ruled the ACA completely unconstitutional because the mandate is unconstitutional and cannot be severed from the ACA, well, never mind what we all said before, “The law still works without it.”

    • #75
  16. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Rich Weinstein 

    My video thread on the crap sandwich we were fed to believe the individual mandate was inseparable from Obamacare, & what they’re saying now that the mandate has been ruled inseparable from Obamacare, thus causing the entire law to be found Unconstitutional.

     

    • #76
  17. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Songwriter (View Comment):
    smoothing over the fact that the child should have never been here in the first place.

    I hear she died of dehydration, despite authorities air lifting her to a hospital and going to extreme measures to save her. Didn’t hear that from the Fake News either, did you?

    • #77
  18. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    Songwriter (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    And then there’s the usual labeling of a judge as “conservative.” What does that mean, and does it matter? Should I care what a federal judge thinks about fiscal policy, tax policy, gun rights, or anything else besides how he thinks we’re supposed to figure out what the Constitution means?

    This is a side point – but an important one. The MSM reports I’ve watched have all deliberately pointed out the judge is GW Bush appointee and a “conservative.” I have never once heard any ruling from any judge ever ruled as being “liberal.” This is how the MSM selectively shades its reporting. So even as they give us the facts, they are also trying to tell us what is good and what is bad. We poor listeners are not capable of drawing a judgement on our own.

    Similarly, reports (also from Texas) about death of an illegal immigrant child of seven (brought here by her father from Guatemala) while in custody are all focusing Robert “Beto” O’Rourke’s outrage, and smoothing over the fact that the child should have never been here in the first place.

    With the MSM, it’s as much about what they don’t tell us as why they do tell us.

    As far as the tragedy of that child’s death, to die of thirst and de-hydration usually indicates that a kid has not had water for a day or two, not the 8 hours that the kid had been held by Border patrol.

    • #78
  19. Roderic Fabian Coolidge
    Roderic Fabian
    @rhfabian

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    The individual mandate still exists. The GOP Congress didn’t kill it, contrary to my misunderstanding; it only killed the tax penalty, leaving the mandate in place.

    What does that even mean? If there’s no penalty whatsoever for ignoring the mandate, in what sense is it really a mandate? It’s more like a suggestion.

    Is there any precedent for Congress passing a law with no penalties or sanctions attached? It seems almost intrinsic to the definition of a law that it specify some sort of punishment for violating it.

    Laws and regulations with no teeth are pretty common.  An example would be the Texas texting and driving law.

    • #79
  20. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    So now we have a situation where the right is trying to get rid of it, even if they’re being ham handed about it.

    The Republicans tried repeal, but one selfish, egocentric Trump-hater voted against repeal as personal payback to The Donald . . .

    It makes me crazy.

    It was passed unethically. What more does he need?

    Important stuff.

    A tax bill, according to Roberts, but originating in the Senate.

    Banning health insurance, literally.

    Piles of lies about keeping your old plan, etc.

    Senate supermajority by means of Al Franken’s election, in which the percentage of felons illegally voting for Democrats was confirmed to result in a larger number of votes than Franken’s margin of victory.

    • #80
  21. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    If McCain thought that there wasn’t going to be universal coverage anymore, passed on a bipartisan basis, after the skinny repeal, he was crazy. 

    A Republican-led form of universal multi payer was the best way to slow down socialism in this country. 

    His son-in-law, Ben Dominich new all of this stuff cold.

    It makes me sick.

    • #81
  22. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Roderic Fabian (View Comment):
    Laws and regulations with no teeth are pretty common. An example would be the Texas texting and driving law.

    How so?

    Beginning on Friday September 1st, texting while driving within the state of Texas will be punishable by a fine of $25-99 for first-time offenders, and $100-200 for repeat offenders (though no points will be assigned). The new law also states that if an accident caused by texting and driving results in the death or serious bodily injury of another person, they can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $4,000 and confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year (in addition to any other charges/punishments).

    https://www.jrlawfirm.com/blog/texas-texting-and-driving-laws/

    Sounds like a clear and well-defined penalty to me.

    • #82
  23. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Roderic Fabian (View Comment):
    Laws and regulations with no teeth are pretty common. An example would be the Texas texting and driving law.

    How so?

    Beginning on Friday September 1st, texting while driving within the state of Texas will be punishable by a fine of $25-99 for first-time offenders, and $100-200 for repeat offenders (though no points will be assigned). The new law also states that if an accident caused by texting and driving results in the death or serious bodily injury of another person, they can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $4,000 and confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year (in addition to any other charges/punishments).

    https://www.jrlawfirm.com/blog/texas-texting-and-driving-laws/

    Sounds like a clear and well-defined penalty to me.

    The problem is that although these state-legislated statutes exist in many states, they are rarely enforced. When a young woman slammed into the rear of my passenger van, she was on the phone when she exited her sports car. She remained on the phone for most of the next 45 minutes. She very reluctantly  put the phone down when the police officer wanted her account of the accident.

    My insurer was not interested in pulling up her phone records. The one satisfaction I took was while she had totalled the front of the car she was in, my van was left barely scratched.

    • #83
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.