(CNN) Breaking: Florida Federal Judge Strikes Down Key Parts of Healthcare Bill as Unconstitutional

[Predicto]

Your claim was Vinsons order was unclear....scope is not in question when he ruled it unconstitutional and unseverable from the whole with a declaratory judgment

Your continued ignoring of "in the interim" and it's meaning to the AG's is weak sauce,similar to the weakness in the govt's request for clarity

I give up. I can no longer even understand what you are trying to argue.

[twa]

That your supporting quotes from the AG's are out of the context of their statements.

You blatantly ignore the uncertainty was not from Vinson's wording of the ruling,but rather from the conflict with Hudson's and the appeals in the works.

[Predicto]

That your supporting quotes from the AG's are out of the context of their statements.

You blatantly ignore the uncertainty was not from Vinson's wording of the ruling,but rather from the conflict with Hudson's and the appeals in the works.

Oh, now I see what you are saying.

But you are wrong. The conflict with Hudson's decision and the other decisions cannot be understood without understanding the scope of Vinson's ruling. And if Vinson's ruling clearly barred any further implementation of the law by the Feds - then the attorneys general would have understood what to do, at least for the time being.

The fact that two courts issue different rulings would not matter if one of the courts says: "the law is fine" and the other court says: "the law is not fine and I prohibit the Federal Government from making any of the states implement it." A higher court would eventually have to resolve the issue, but until then, the law would not be implemented. Everyone was trying to figure out if that was the situation or not. And only Vinson knew the answer.

At this point we are splitting hairs. You want to continue to believe that only "idiots" would have found Vinson's prior ruling confusing or would have dared ask for clarification. I don't think that is accurate. I guess we are done.

[twa]

Their request for clarification was in effect a request for a stay...the scope was clear,but the future of it surviving appeals was not.

it's been fun

[Wrong Direction]

Well, you do have to admit that that ruling is consistent with over a century of "commerce clause" "interpretation".

That's the exact opposite of what your quoted passage is saying.

[Larry]

That's the exact opposite of what your quoted passage is saying.

No it isn't.

C'mon, the commerce clause has been expanding to cover the entire world for almost 200 years. It's expanded to allow the federal government to regulate pollution, the drug industry, agriculture, and drug prohibition.

When was the last time the USSC ruled that something wasn't covered by the commerce clause?

[twa]

I like NRO's take (go figure):

]

Seen this one?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261308/vinson-white-house-stop-stalling-avik-roy

Quoting an appellate ruling, he notes, “A declaratory judgment is a real judgment, not just a bit of friendly advice.” He sardonically recounts the administration’s stalling tactics, and describes their active “misrepresentation” of judicial procedure.

....

The White House lamely tried to cite some case law in order to argue that the government was entitled to ignore Vinson’s ruling until the case had wound its way up the appeals-court ladder. But that’s not how the judicial system works. As Vinson writes, “The defendants’ selective quoting from those cases — to suggest that the federal government may simply ignore a declaratory judgment by a district court until the appeals process has fully run its course — borders on misrepresentation.”

[mikered30]

1,040 waivers from Obama care for the first year.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/147715-number-of-healthcare-reform-law-waivers-climbs-above-1000

[Madison Redskin]

When was the last time the USSC ruled that something wasn't covered by the commerce clause?

About 15 years ago. U.S. V. Lopez.

[Wrong Direction]

When was the last time the USSC ruled that something wasn't covered by the commerce clause?

Might as well just put no constraints on what the government wants to do, right? If everyone jumps off a bridge, should the government go with them?

[twa]

1,040 waivers from Obama care for the first year.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/147715-number-of-healthcare-reform-law-waivers-climbs-above-1000

of which about 41% are going to unions...which I thought were big supporters of this reform...guess not when it costs them.

[twa]

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2011/03/07/why-dont-we-all-get-a-waiver-and-be-done-with-it.php

Why don't we all get a waiver and be done with it

''''''

I think it's past time for the rest of America to receive a waiver. This behemoth is a huge mistake, nearly everyone coming to that conclusion though many kicking and screaming.

Repeal this job killing beast. Sooner rather than later.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

No it isn't.

C'mon, the commerce clause has been expanding to cover the entire world for almost 200 years. It's expanded to allow the federal government to regulate pollution, the drug industry, agriculture, and drug prohibition.

When was the last time the USSC ruled that something wasn't covered by the commerce clause?

I could be wrong, but I think there was a decision just a couple years back that found just so. I can't remember the details.

However, I think those things you listed are all clearly interstate commerce. I don't think we can debate too much as to whether pollution travels across state lines, can we? Same for drugs and agriculture? I think those are examples of the commerce clause being used in its least offensive manner.

Unless I'm not understanding what you are envisioning when you list those.

[IHOPSkins]

Obama Tells GOP: Nice Try on Health Care Records

President Barack Obama once promised that negotiations over his health care overhaul would be carried out openly, in front of TV cameras and microphones. Tell that to the White House now.

Republican congressional investigators got the brush-off this past week after pressing for details of meetings between White House officials and interest groups, including drug companies and hospitals that provided critical backing for Obama's health insurance expansion.

Complying with the records request from the House Energy and Commerce Committee "would constitute a vast and expensive undertaking" and could "implicate longstanding executive branch confidentiality interests," White House lawyer Robert Bauer wrote the committee. Translation: Nice try.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13121274

So much for Bipartisanship and Obamas "Transparancy".......I guess the WH is just to busy throwing parties

While Cairo Burns, Obama Parties

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/01/30/cairo-burns-obama-parties/

[aREDSKIN]

From Mr. Will

Madison's constitutional architecture for limited government will be vitiated unless the court places some limits on what constitutes commerce eligible for regulation. So the question becomes: Is the inactivity of not buying insurance a commercial activity Congress can proscribe because it has economic consequences?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/11/AR2011031105815.html

[Larry]

From Mr. Will

Madison's constitutional architecture for limited government will be vitiated unless the court places some limits on what constitutes commerce eligible for regulation. So the question becomes: Is the inactivity of not buying insurance a commercial activity Congress can proscribe because it has economic consequences?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/11/AR2011031105815.html

IMO, it's a valid point.

OTOH, I wonder how many of the people who think that this is a treasonous violation of the Constitution, had no trouble at all with the decision that a farmer growing marijuana in California, for use in California, was performing interstate commerce, because medical marijuana in California might affect the street price of illegal marijuana in New York.

Frankly, I suspect that the FFs intended interstate commerce to be a whole lot smaller than it is now. To the point where if we were to go back to that original intent, we'd have to get rid of half the government. (Cue the folks who will loudly announce that they think it's a good idea, most of whom aren't being honest, and the small remainder of which are delusional.)

To the vast majority, it's only unconstitutional if you don't like that law.