Obamacare: Federal court rules individual mandates are constitutional
The latest battle in the fight against Obamacare, and the individual mandates, has gone in favor of the Obama regime when a Cincinnati court declared that the federal government could order people to purchase healthcare insurance. This is a big victory for the Obama regime for two reasons: Firstly, this was the first case heard at the federal appeals court level, and as such was a huge victory for the insidious legislation, and secondly; because a Republican appointed judge sided with a Democrat appointed judge to hand the Obama regime this victory. It was predicted that the individual mandates would be ruled unconstitutional in this court.
Even while siding with the majority Justice Sutton, a George W Bush appointee, voiced his concerns with the mandate he voted in favor of:
The novelty of the individual mandate may indeed suggest it is a bridge too far, but it also may offer one more example of a policy necessity giving birth to an inventive (and constitutional) congressional solution
It seems odd that this justice would indicate that the healthcare mandate was “a bridge too far” in one sentence, while also claiming that this may be a necessary and “inventive” congressional solution to a problem. It also seems as if this statement would open the door to other “inventive” congressional solutions on a myriad of other perceived problems down the road; where will the nation of acceptable congressional solutions end in regards to a person’s personal decisions?
Judge Sutton’s verdict on this issue is crucial moving forward for other judges will look upon his statement when coming to their own conclusions moving forward; will they side with the “bridge too far” aspect of his statement, or will they side with the “inventive congressional solution” side of his statement?
This is a bothersome decision as this case makes its way to the Supreme Court, but the fight is not over until the final appeal is made to the Supreme Court. It looks like this will be a 5-4 decision when all is said and done, but right now it is unclear which side the Supreme Court decision will come down on.
America's Watchtower 
It’s not gonna end here. After this it will be what kind of car we have to buy and drive (which is in the works – think “green”), what food we can eat (once again, in the works – Thanks Mooshell), what entertainment we will be allowed (Net Neutrality), and on down the line. When all is said and done, they will try to tell us what job we will have (Clinton tried that with his “Cradle to Grave” BS), where we can live, how long we can live (ObamaCare) and then Heaven knows what else.
LikeLike
I agree, all of this has been put in motion and our freedoms hang in the balance of the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare; we are very close to losing America as we know her.
LikeLike
Huh? Net Neutrality is government telling us what entertainment we can avail ourselves of? Wrong – it’s the government telling ISPs that they can’t tell their customers what they may and may not avail themselves of.
Otherwise, if your ISP was, say, Comcast, who also sells television access, they could block you from accessing Netflix. Some snarky people say they’ll just switch ISPs, but that’s not a viable option for most people in the US – and in many cases, the competition to one monster mega ISP is another monster mega ISP – meaning that one way or the other, you’re going to be singing BOHICA . . .
Opposition to net neutrality is pretty much an endorsement of monopoly power and abuse of power.
The they tried telling us what cars we could and couldn’t drive in NJ a few years back – the GOP dreamed up regulations mandating that if your car failed inspection twice, it couldn’t be registered – you’d have to junk it. And like most states, NJ no longer concentrates on safety in its annual inspections, it concentrates on emissions – they were all on board with that as soon as they figured out a way to make a buck off it, even if it meant ripping off the average motorist. (Gov. Whitman took a beating on that one, by the way – the regulations were overturned in a NJ minute . . .)
It’s fashionable to suggest that government intervention in the marketplace is the root of all that’s wrong with the marketplace, but also inaccurate – and absent that intervention, we’d have a very different set of problems facing us.
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
The point I was trying to make there was that they are trying to control content. If they can do it with the internet, do you think they will be satisfied?
LikeLike
I think that the idea of the statement of “A bridge too far” is a nod to the idea that Government should scale back on it’s incursion into rights. While I felt that under the Commerce Clause “Obama Care” is constitutional (I don’t like it but it is what it is) This is probably going to be stopped at the SCOTUS for other reasons. Government incursions into private decisions need to be stifled and it needs to happen quick. This isn’t the Marshall Supreme Court.
LikeLike
Yet at the same time he says the government should scale back on the incursion into rights, he allows the government to do just that. The original intent of the commerce clause had nothing to do with individuals; it was a way to regulate commerce between the states, I think it has been broadened over they years to the point where the courts could rule Obamacare constitutional. But that is because of past abuses of the clause.
LikeLike
I guess he was never part of that body of government that ran up the debt.
LikeLike
OOPS wrong post disregard the above. New laptop fingers aren’t used to it.
LikeLike