Skip to content

Obamacare: Atlanta court poised to rule Obamacare unconstitutional

June 8, 2011

  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.

9 Comments leave one →
  1. June 8, 2011 9:18 pm

    This could indeed be very good news. Where does Obama find idiots like Katyal. He seems to have an endless supply of them.


    • June 9, 2011 6:01 am

      I hope the early reports are true, we should know fairly soon.


  2. June 8, 2011 11:03 pm

    I hope the court does the right thing here. I mean after all Steve it’s only our liberties we’re talking about. If they did rule against ObamaCare this would definitely hurt because two of the judges were appointed by Clinton.


    • June 9, 2011 6:02 am

      It sounds like they are going to do the right thing, but until we hear the ruling we cannot be sure. It would be interesting to say the least if the ruling is against healthcare and two Clinton judges helped to bring it down.


  3. The Georgia Yankee permalink
    June 8, 2011 11:26 pm

    Just a point of order here – Katyar’s quote isn’t from oral arguments in Atlanta today (6/8/11), but last week in Cincinnati, in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

    As to which judge was appointed by which President, this is getting tiresome. I know some folks like to use it to predict how a judge will rule, but as the fellow said, it’s not over until it’s over. Predicting how judges will rule is just marking time, nothing more. What concerns me more is the undercurrent of “well, this one’s ruling doesn’t really matter because s/he was appointed by the other side.”

    Boortz was making a big deal of today’s Atlanta proceedings today – he said it could well be the final word in the case because if SCOTUS splits 4-4 on the issue, as might happen because Kagen must recuse herself, then the lower court ruling stands.

    Of course, Boortz was silent on the issue of whether or not Thomas should recuse himself. I wonder if he’d be as silent if Mr. Sotomayor was a big-time volunteer for Latinos for Healthcare Reform.

    Take good care and may God bless us all!



    • June 9, 2011 6:07 am

      I knew Katyar’s quote was from last week, but thought it was the same hearing. I apologize for the error.
      I do think that we can look at who appointed the judges to try to guess how a ruling will come down, it may just be killing time while waiting, but I find it interesting. I don’t think that a ruling doesn’t really matter because it was handed down by the other side, it matters just as much and I am not sure why you get the opinion that I don’t.
      And I think that you know I believe that both Thomas and Kagan should recuse themselves from the case, although I do not think it is likely.


  4. bunkerville permalink
    June 9, 2011 1:14 pm

    Looks like things might pick up for us. We could sure use a win right now. I know how you folks feel about Thomas and that he should recuse himself. I think there is a big difference between a person who is directly involved and a wife or husband. If you hold with that, then all Judges and Financial Advisors and the like must recuse themselves in the same way. I would like to think that a husband and wife are not joined at the hip but are unique individuals.


  5. June 9, 2011 8:10 pm

    This decision will be important. Of course, it will be decided, finally, by the SCOTUS. It really defines what the relationship between the state and the individual. If ObamaCare survives, the government can tell anyone to do anything.


    • June 11, 2011 4:17 am

      Matt, if ObamaCare were to survive the SCOTUS ruling … then we, the citizens, must call for a constitutional convention.

      Never, never, never! We must never relinquish the constitutional freedoms our Founding Fathers have bequeathed to us.

      Please read my latest post …


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: