Obamacare: Atlanta court poised to rule Obamacare unconstitutional
The next step in the constitutional challenges to Obamacare has just taken place in Atlanta Georgia, and it is considered to be the most important decision yet regarding the healthcare reform law because this was the first court case in which oral arguments were heard in defense of the law.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet released its verdict, but according to this article it appears as if the court is ready to rule the healthcare reform law is unconstitutional because–as this article states–the court has serious concerns over the healthcare mandates.
Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was tapped by Republican President George H.W. Bush, struck early by asking the government’s attorney “if we uphold the individual mandate in this case, are there any limits on Congressional power?” Circuit Judges Frank Hull and Stanley Marcus, who were tapped by Democratic President Bill Clinton, echoed his concerns later in the hearing.
One judge was appointed by the first President Bush while the other two judges were appointed by President Clinton and it appears as if they all share a concern over the healthcare mandate. When questioned during the hearing about the healthcare mandate, Barack Obama’s acting Solicitor General–Neal Kumar Katyal–made the outrageous claim in defense of the mandate that it wasn’t really a mandate because people could avoid the mandate by choosing to be less successful.
“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income.”
If you want to avoid the mandate don’t “need to earn that much income” according to Barack Obama’s defense team. And this is coming from the regime that promised Joe the plumber during the campaign that he doesn’t want to punish success–is this not an admission that the Obama regime does in fact want to punish success? It seems so to me, what other conclusion can one come to when reading the defense of the mandate that Katyal claims is no mandate?
This convoluted logic coming from the person who is supposed to be defending the healthcare reform law has got to have these three judges shaking their heads. It seems as if freedom loving Americans are about to be handed the next victory in this fight against the healthcare reform law, and this is a big one. But the fight is not over, even if we are victorious here, because this is headed to the Supreme Court.
Katyal’s performance defending the healthcare mandate has got to help our cause moving forward, it appears as if they caught him off guard and he admitted what many of us knew was the truth all along–Barack Obama is a socialist who is looking to spread the wealth around by disincentivising people who would otherwise strive for excellency by having them settle for mediocrity.