District Court Judge finally gets it right..

[ariscus99 1]

The healthcare mandate finally took it's first blow today with a district court judge ruling thats it's unconstitutional!

Here is the text of what the judge had to say. Having the government be able to regulate what we must buy is a very scary thought, and a very slippery slope. Hopefully this will hold up. Healthcare reform is needed, but NO ONE has the right to tell me what I must buy.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The healthcare mandate finally took it's first blow today with a district court judge ruling thats it's unconstitutional!

Here is the text of what the judge had to say. Having the government be able to regulate what we must buy is a very scary thought, and a very slippery slope. Hopefully this will hold up. Healthcare reform is needed, but NO ONE has the right to tell me what I must buy.

No surprise here. Read on:

Submitted by Brian on December 13, 2010 - 2:16pm Today a federal judge in Virginia, responding to a suit filed by the state’s far-right Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, ruled that a key part of health care reform was unconstitutional. The judge, Henry E. Hudson, said that the Constitution’s “interstate commerce clause” does not provide the federal government the right to implement a mandate to make sure that everyone has health insurance coverage. A different federal judge in Virginia dismissed a similar suit brought by Liberty University against the reform law only two weeks ago.

Judge Hudson was first appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986 to be US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and in 2002, George W. Bush appointed him to serve as district court judge for Virginia’s Eastern District.

According to disclosure forms, Judge Hudson reported collecting “dividends” totaling anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000 from Campaign Solutions over a five year period of 2003 to 2008. Campaign Solutions later acknowledged that Hudson has owned stock in the firm since it was founded.

Campaign Solutions has a long record of working with conservative organizations and Republican candidates, including none other than Ken Cuccinelli. As the Alliance for Justice points out, “Campaign Solutions, has done work for a host of prominent Republican clients and health care reform critics, including the RNC and NRCC (both of which have called, to varying degrees, for health care reform’s repeal).”

Along with Cuccinnelli, who was elected Attorney General in 2009, Campaign Solutions worked for John McCain and Bush’s presidential campaigns, the notorious Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and the Judicial Confirmation Network (since renamed the Judicial Crisis Network). In fact, Campaign Solutions was behind the establishment of the JCN, which was founded to support George W. Bush’s conservative judicial nominees and coordinate activities right-wing organizations, especially with Religious Right groups, although the JCN has since changed its name and works to oppose the confirmation of Obama’s nominees.

In 2008, The New Republic found that the JCN “publicly consists of two employees, a post box, and a website” and was “originally created in November 2004 by Becki Donatelli, a Republican PR doyenne who chairs Campaign Solutions (the firm used by Bush-Cheney ‘04, McCain 2008, the RNC, the NRCC, and even the 527 Vets For Freedom).”

As reported earlier today, according to legal expert Tim Jost, who has been following the many health care reform decisions being issues, “This decision is very defective and will be reversed by the appellate court or the Supreme Court."

In addition, two other judges, one in Detroit, and one in Lynchburg, VA, upheld the law.

Social Security and civil rights had similar challenges. And the White House said implementation will proceed.

[ariscus99 1]

Do you honestly believe that 15k over a 5 year period to a man who probably make 250k a year is enough to make him rule something unconstitutional, if he knew it wasn't. That would be like saying I'll give you 500 bucks over the next 5 years if you teach some kids something that isn't true. Also it's the three rulings so far aren't really all that surprising, two liberal judges who are Obama advocates say it's constitutional, and the conservative judge who isn't an Obama fanboy say's it's not. Judge Moon's ruling has already been appealed and is waiting to be seen by the 4th circuit court of appeals, as is Judge Steeh's by the 6th circuit court of appeals.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Do you honestly believe that 15k over a 5 year period to a man who probably make 250k a year is enough to make him rule something unconstitutional, if he knew it wasn't. That would be like saying I'll give you 500 bucks over the next 5 years if you teach some kids something that isn't true. Also it's the three rulings so far aren't really all that surprising, two liberal judges who are Obama advocates say it's constitutional, and the conservative judge who isn't an Obama fanboy say's it's not. Judge Moon's ruling has already been appealed and is waiting to be seen by the 4th circuit court of appeals, as is Judge Steeh's by the 6th circuit court of appeals.

Yes, I do. Plus I am sure he drinks the right wing, anti-Obama kool-aid.

Health reform for everyoneLegal challenges to the new law are almost certain to fail, and rightly soThursday, December 16, 2010By Eric H. Holder Jr. and Kathleen SebeliusIn March, New Hampshire preschool teacher Gail O'Brien, who was unable to obtain health insurance through her employer, was diagnosed with an aggressive lymphoma. Her subsequent applications for health insurance were rejected because of her condition. With each round of chemotherapy costing $16,000, she delayed treatment because she knew her savings wouldn't last.

Then President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act. Thanks to this law, Ms. O'Brien is getting treatment through a temporary program that provides affordable coverage to people who've been shut out of the insurance market because of a preexisting condition. Even better, she knows that in 2014 insurers will be banned from discriminating against her or any American with preexisting conditions.

That's what makes the lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act so troubling. Roughly 20 cases question the new law's individual responsibility provision, which says that Americans who can afford to must maintain basic health coverage.

Federal courts in Michigan and Virginia have upheld the law as constitutional, but Monday, a federal court in Virginia reached the opposite result. These and other cases will continue through our courts as opponents try to block the law. But these attacks are wrong on the law, and if allowed to succeed, they would have devastating consequences for everyone with health insurance.

The majority of Americans who have health insurance pay a higher price because of our broken system. Every insured family pays an average of $1,000 more a year in premiums to cover the care of those who have no insurance.

Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available when they need it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry insurance, and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014.

If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it's essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.

The same is true for health insurance. Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn't work.

The legal arguments made against the law gloss over this problem even as opponents have sought to invent new constitutional theories and dig up ones that were rejected 80 years ago.

Opponents claim the individual responsibility provision is unlawful because it "regulates inactivity." But none of us is a bystander when it comes to health care. All of us need health care eventually. Do we pay in advance, by getting insurance, or do we try to pay later, when we need medical care?

The individual responsibility provision says that as participants in the health-care market, Americans should pay for insurance if they can afford it. That's important because when people who don't have insurance show up at emergency rooms, we don't deny them care. The costs of this uncompensated care -- $43 billion in 2008 -- are then passed on to doctors, hospitals, small businesses and Americans who have insurance.

As two federal courts have held, this unfair cost-shifting harms the marketplace. For decades, Supreme Court decisions have made clear that the Constitution allows Congress to adopt rules to deal with such harmful effects, which is what the law does -- it regulates how we pay for health care by ensuring that those who have insurance don't continue to pay for those who don't. Because of the long-held legal precedent of upholding such provisions, even President Ronald Reagan's solicitor general, Charles Fried, called legal objections to the law "far-fetched."

As these lawsuits continue, Americans should be clear about what the opponents of reform are asking the courts to do. Striking down the individual responsibility provision means slamming the door on millions of Americans like Gail O'Brien who've been locked out of our health insurance markets and shifting more costs onto families who've acted responsibly.

It's not surprising that opponents, having lost in Congress, have taken to the courts. We saw similar challenges to laws that created Social Security and established civil rights protections. Those challenges ultimately failed, and so will this one.

Rather than fighting to undo the progress we've made, and returning to the days when one out of seven Americans was denied insurance due to their medical histories, supporters of repeal should work with us to implement this law effectively. The initial decisions about the Affordable Care Act will be reviewed on appeal. We are confident the law will be upheld.

Eric H. Holder Jr. is attorney general of the United States. Kathleen Sebelius is secretary of health and human services. They wrote this for The Washington Post

[ariscus99 1]

Gasp, two Obama appointees like obamacare? I'd have never guessed. And again, to say that a district court judge would do something illegal and unethical which could have severe consequences for 3000 dollars a year for 5 years is asinine.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Gasp, two Obama appointees like obamacare? I'd have never guessed. And again, to say that a district court judge would do something illegal and unethical which could have severe consequences for 3000 dollars a year for 5 years is asinine.

Gasp! One bush appointee who hates Obama and the Affordable Patient & Protection Act. Who said anything about illegal and unethical? You're the one who brought it up. Know something the rest of us don't?

[ariscus99 1]

<br>Gasp! One bush appointee who hates Obama and the Affordable Patient & Protection Act. Who said anything about illegal and unethical? You're the one who brought it up. Know something the rest of us don't?

<br><br>I stated exactly this already, the obama fan boys say yes, the one's who don't like obama say no. Is there an echo in the forum. <div><br></div><div>Unethical? You are claiming that Judge Hudson ruled the way he did because he received money from a conservative organization. That would be unethical, and more than likely illegal. So your making the claim. And if you try to play word games and say you never said that, well the article you posted pretty much does.

</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>

[Cleo's Mom 257]

<br><br>I stated exactly this already, the obama fan boys say yes, the one's who don't like obama say no. Is there an echo in the forum. <div><br></div><div>Unethical? You are claiming that Judge Hudson ruled the way he did because he received money from a conservative organization. That would be unethical, and more than likely illegal. So your making the claim. And if you try to play word games and say you never said that, well the article you posted pretty much does.

</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>

The article doesn't say anything about illegal or unethical. It simply explains from where this judge gets some of his funding. And thus where his loyalty is. If it is illegal or unethical I am sure it will be investigated by some judicial review board.

I, do, however, think Scalia is unethical. A SCOTUS is not supposed to be involved in politics yet he has been to several high ended republican fundraisers and is meeting behind closed doors with republican members of the house to supposedly discuss the constitution. I bring this up because his vote put bush in the white house in 2000. And if the healthcare goes to the Supreme Court, his vote will be very political and activist - isn't that what the republicans always yap against when a democratic president appoints a judge?

[isaviolinist 11]

Not that I care to engage in this discussion, as I really don't think either side is right (and I think all the folks in DC are acting liking petulant children), but ariscus - according to your post history, you've only posted about conservative political news stories in the Rants and Raves section. Have you had/are you considering WLS? Because I feel like there are many other forums on the net which would give you much more lively discussion of these topics. While this IS an off topic area, I think most people are coming here for support with their band.

[ariscus99 1]

Not that I care to engage in this discussion, as I really don't think either side is right (and I think all the folks in DC are acting liking petulant children), but ariscus - according to your post history, you've only posted about conservative political news stories in the Rants and Raves section. Have you had/are you considering WLS? Because I feel like there are many other forums on the net which would give you much more lively discussion of these topics. While this IS an off topic area, I think most people are coming here for support with their band.

Read a little better buddy, I've posted several things in the WLS part of the forums, from NSV's to helping with questions of other fire and policemen, asking question's about surgeon's giving opinions on my surgeon, etc. etc. so before you go and get all high and mighty learn to read a little better(FWIW I was banded Aug '09 and am down 86 lbs, with about 40 to go). Stay the heck out of the post if you don't like the topics and if I feel like posting predominantly in one area thats my choice and I WILL EXERCISE IT! Are you a forum moderator? If not, keep to yourself.

[isaviolinist 11]

Lol - no, for real. I was driving when I got this notification on my phone and started laughing so hard I couldn't focus on the road. Especially when you yelled at me with capital letters. Hm, are you a policeman (you said you were helping other police and firemen)? You're not a Philly police officer, are you? Your aggressive disdainful and grandiose attitude would fit right in on the Philly police scene (although if you're no longer obese and you don't like to spend most of your day perusing the pretzel and hot dog bars at various WaWa locations around the city, you'd be in the minority in that respect).

Anywhoo, glad to hear you weren't lost among the interwebs and you actually are on LBT because you've had WLS. And of course, congrats on your weightloss!

[ariscus99 1]

Lol - no, for real. I was driving when I got this notification on my phone and started laughing so hard I couldn't focus on the road. Especially when you yelled at me with capital letters. Hm, are you a policeman (you said you were helping other police and firemen)? You're not a Philly police officer, are you? Your aggressive disdainful and grandiose attitude would fit right in on the Philly police scene (although if you're no longer obese and you don't like to spend most of your day perusing the pretzel and hot dog bars at various WaWa locations around the city, you'd be in the minority in that respect).

Anywhoo, glad to hear you weren't lost among the interwebs and you actually are on LBT because you've had WLS. And of course, congrats on your weightloss!

I thought you read my post history? No? So do you lie a lot? Or just assume everything? Either way, your juvenile. Who comes onto a forum to try and call someone out about something that they quite obviously have no clue as to what there talking about, and then go on to insult the people who put their lives on the line everyday to protect you. Yeah I yelled with caps, your asinine, insulting, and you add nothing to the conversation that is going on here. I'm sure all Philly cops are fat and mean and only eat pretzel's and hot dogs, thats all cops do right, you have so much insight, again, juvenile, asinine, and un-needed. Hopefully when you need their assistance, they won't treat you the same way you treat them, your disgraceful.