« Marco Rubio skips CPAC, elects for a Florida "focus" | Main | Debbie Wasserman Schultz to publish a book »

Republicans rejoice as 'ObmaCare' tossed out by Florida court

The GOP is whooping it up now that Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida has become the second judge to declare President Obama's healthcare law unconstitutional. Vinson said that congress overstepped its bounds in passing the so-called 'Individual mandate" requiring people to buy health insurance.

The news barely hit the internet before Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos, Gov. Rick Scott and a host of other Republican lawmakers hailed the defeat of the healthcare law.

The administration will likely appeal. But the U.S. Supreme Court, tilted in favor of conservatives, will likely uphold Vinson's ruling as well as a similar order made by Henry Hudson in Virginia.

Vinson's ruling points out a true oddity in the healthcare law: the absence of a severability clause, which would allow the law to stand even if portions of it are struck out. Without the clause, Vinson's ruling against the individual mandate undoes the entire law.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void," Vinson wrote. "This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications."




Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


At least we got one judge who sees the Constitution the right way. Just a matter of time before Obamacare's on the cutting room floor for good.


Suddenly Democrats will have a court decision they don't like. Though it suits me just fine.

Water flows down hill

FOr all of their talk about hating activist judges, conservatives certainly don't mind seeing judicial activism when it dovetails with their own prejudices. Throwing out the entire law runs contrary to precedent. And it is unconscionable that a judge would presume what an individual legislator would have voted on if one clause is stricken, which this judge speculated on in his ruling. That part of this ruling will not stand.
Large parts of his ruing were take directly from Amicus briefs from right wing groups.
It is both bad reporting to summarily presume what the Supreme Court might rule, and, in addition, it is probably wrong. Don't forget the score is now tow to two on these rulings. This Court was sought out in gross forum shopping to get a good ruling.
Tis is far from over.

The comments to this entry are closed.