Washington (CNN) -- The sweeping health care reform bill championed by President Barack Obama was upheld as constitutional by another federal appeals court Tuesday.The decision is not part of a half-dozen other appeals pending at the Supreme Court. The justices could decide this week whether to take on one or more of those legal challenges to the law. Those suits were brought by more than a two dozen states and a coalition of private groups and individuals.Tuesday's 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a victory for the administration and its congressional supporters, but only adds to the divide among a range of federal courts over whether the law should be tossed out or severely trimmed in its scope. Three appeals court have upheld the law, while one has ruled it unconstitutional.The majority in this latest case concluded while the assertion of federal authority in the law is large, so too is the issue Congress and the president sought to tackle."The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins," wrote Judge Laurence Silberman.It is unclear whether the high court will include this latest ruling with the other pending health care cases already on its docket. The justices have scheduled a closed-door conference Thursday to consider whether to accept one or more appeals. If they do, oral arguments would likely be held in March, with a ruling by June.One of the other challenges involves a 26-state coalition opposing the law. A federal appeals court in Atlanta, considering that suit, had earlier found a key provision of the law to be unconstitutional.The key issue is whether the "individual mandate" section -- requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties -- is an improper exercise of federal authority. The states also say that if that linchpin provision is unconstitutional, the entire law with its 450 or so sections must then be scrapped.
I want car and home insurance requirements repealed. If requiring health care insurance is bad, then those must be bad as well.
I also want employers to stop offering health insurance and pension plans. Lets go all the way conservative, everybody is on his own. This is the onlly way to stop this creeping socialism that threatens to turn us into a nation of dependents, all sucking the teats of government.
So, is UtahBill being sarcastic, or not?
I definitly don't want to pay my car insurance...especially since I can't drive my car for the next few years in the first place. But I know you're being sarcastic :/I want car and home insurance requirements repealed. If requiring health care insurance is bad, then those must be bad as well.
I also want employers to stop offering health insurance and pension plans. Lets go all the way conservative, everybody is on his own. This is the onlly way to stop this creeping socialism that threatens to turn us into a nation of dependents, all sucking the teats of government.
So, is UtahBill being sarcastic, or not?
I want car and home insurance requirements repealed. If requiring health care insurance is bad, then those must be bad as well.
I also want employers to stop offering health insurance and pension plans. Lets go all the way conservative, everybody is on his own. This is the onlly way to stop this creeping socialism that threatens to turn us into a nation of dependents, all sucking the teats of government.
So, is UtahBill being sarcastic, or not?
It doesn't matter what this particular court/judge ruled. Until the Supreme Court (SC) rules on this, it is not settled one way or the other. After the SC rules, it will either go away or the SC will then have to rule upon various states right to reject it. Until that process is complete, the bill will be declared constitutional and unconstitutional back and forth depending on the political view of a given court/judge. Even then, voters are going to have a say on the subject next November also. The Health Care bill will come up, over and over again during the next year leading up to the election. While it may not be the biggest issue to be challenged, it will play a role as it goes to the very heart of the two main factions, government control vs government staying out of peoples lives.
"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins," wrote Judge Laurence Silberman.
He has a long history of ruling like a moonbat ...... just like many of the fools George HW Bush put on federal courts. Your strawman is on fire.It's quite significant. The DC Circuit is generally considered to be the most prestigious of all the circuit courts -- particularly in matters such as these. The author of the opinion was a Reagan appointee.
He clearly pulled most of his justification right out of his arse. He basically said congress can do anything it wants to, there is no boundary, no limits.......nothing can stop them from doing whatever the hell crosses their minds.You are quite correct...and I'm not worried too much about this Appeals Court ruling, except for this attitude:
I find this statement to most alarming, coming from a court charged with upholding the Constitution, for this statement negates the fundamental notion that the Constitution is a constraint on government power.
We're the most lax when it comes to that though :2razz:You should live in Kommiefornia and not a place like The Republic of Texas...................oh wait Texas makes ya do the same thing.:2razz:
He has a long history of ruling like a moonbat ...... just like many of the fools George HW Bush put on federal courts. Your strawman is on fire.
He clearly pulled most of his justification right out of his arse. He basically said congress can do anything it wants to, there is no boundary, no limits.......nothing can stop them from doing whatever the hell crosses their minds.
Well Reverend He...., oh, it's UtahBill referring to himself in the third person. That ****'s contagious.I want car and home insurance requirements repealed. If requiring health care insurance is bad, then those must be bad as well.
I also want employers to stop offering health insurance and pension plans. Lets go all the way conservative, everybody is on his own. This is the onlly way to stop this creeping socialism that threatens to turn us into a nation of dependents, all sucking the teats of government.
So, is UtahBill being sarcastic, or not?
AdamT 1, conservativeguy 0 ....... I stand corrected, Silberman did issues the opinions you posted, I though he was on the other side of the DC gun case, my mistake.He authored the opinion finding that DC's gun ban violated the 2d Amendment and also upheld the Patriot Act's warrantless searches.
And that is basically what decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence has said with respect to the Commerce Clause.
This is a huge blow to freedom. Almost treasonous.
There were three judges on this appeal, two conservative and one liberal. The other conservative judge did not join the majority.Also want to take note that this court was conservative leaning as well...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?