Virginia v. Sebelius

[AZhitman]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/ ... index.html

"When all the legal wrangling is said and done ... this is something that will be upheld," Gibbs predicted. "I think we have a good argument. I think the merits of the case are strong."

Oh, Robert Gibbs, you colossally-ignorant lapdog... Can we get a mandate that requires everyone in the current Administration to read and comprehend the Constitution?

[stebo0728]

Fantastic finding, I just hope it sticks and doesnt get watered under by the left leaning supremes.

[bigbadberry3]

Not watering it down but this doesn't strike down the entire thing from what I'm reading, also other parts have been upheld already in other courts already.

[stebo0728]

True, it doesnt strike it all down, but it does address one of the more "progressive" parts

[bigbadberry3]

I would agree it strikes down one of the more overbearing parts of the law but I don't think it affects any pre existing conditions or my personal favorite part, youngins back on their parents plan. Please feel free to correct me as I'm no law expert.

[stebo0728]

No it just deals with the forcing of coverage with fear of penalty, on the grounds that you are forcing people to purchase "goods or services" which is what health coverage is. As far as pre existing conditions, I dont think insurance companies should be forced to pay for pre existing conditions. Can you get fire hazzard insurance the day after your house burns down, then call in and claim the fire? NO. Again emotion outshines logic only because we are talking about healthcare. As far as parents keeping children on their plan, I dont have a problem with that as long as insurance companies are allowed to calculate their risk and set premiums accordingly. But I think anyone should be able to "incorporate" for sake of insuring, not JUST married couples and parents with children. If I want to set up a policy, and have you Greg and IB on it then whats the problem? Thats part of the gay rights argument, for gay couples to be able to get policies together, but really it goes beyond that. Any group of people should be able to get a policy together. Thats just my opinion though, whatever thats worth

[IBCoupe]

Also to be noted: this same portion was upheld by two other Courts, one in MD, and the other also in Virginia.

The problem is that all three cases will be appealed to the same Appellate District. Once we get a ruling by the appellate courts on one of them, it'll be binding on the rest of them. And I'm not saying it's impossible for it to get to the Supreme Court; I'm just saying if they'd been from separate districts, there'd be a better chance of it getting there if there was some disparity between the Appellate Districts.

[stebo0728]

Well there is more to come; Georgia and Florida are both hearing cases regarding the matter next week.

My prediction: it will get all the way to supreme court, im hopeful the Virginia ruling will be upheld, because after all, its the correct one, but my fear is that the segment of government that cant help but tinker with free trade will win the day

[IBCoupe]

Hm. I'm not convinced by his reasoning. He seemed to suggest that the reason it's unconstitutional is because he couldn't find (I'm not making it up) any supporting Appellate court cases. This, to me, seems unlikely, being that two other judges apparently did.

Doing some quick pre-final research:
Wrote the Court in Lynchburg, "Congress can regulate... activities that substantially affect interstate commerce." The Court needed only to determine whether there was a "rational basis" for concluding that the regulated activity would substantially affect interstate commerce, not absolutely determine that it would. That impact has to be more than just incidental to a few individuals, and even purely local activities, should they affect interstate commerce, can be regulated.

Liberty University, that bastion of rational thought ( ), argued that failure to buy insurance was simply a state of being, and wasn't commercial, and couldn't affect interstate commerce. but the State responded that it's often a conscious choice, and it increases costs to healthcare providers and to the government. When it is a conscious thought, it's usually because someone has chosen not to buy insurance until they got sick, and then they want it, and that makes it more expensive. LU also argued that they weren't economic in nature, like a gun-free school zone law that got struck down and a regulation having something to do with marijuana. The court didn't buy it for the above reasons (after all, it can't be both non-economic and a free-market choice, right, Stebo?).

Here's how interstate commervce comes into play, and it has to do with a classic court case that deals with wheat: even if it's a purely local activity, it will have an affect on the local prices that exist on a national market. Wrote the Court, "Because of the nature of supply and demand, Plaintiffs' choices directly affect the price of insurance in the market, which Congress set out in the Act to control."

The only reason the Court in the ruling yesterday didn't find what he was looking for was because he narrowed his question to the point of intentionally trying to spot something that doesn't exist. He went from a question of traditional, precedented Constitutional interpretation to a question of first impression, so that his own legal theories could apply.