Federal judge rules for health care law

The perfect partisan streak in health care rulings continues, with D.C. federal district judge Gladys Kessler, a Clinton appointee, ruling the Affordable Care Act constitutional. She's the third Democratic judge to do so; two Republicans have found it unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Which gives me a thought - Why not rule on a law based on it's Constitutionality, and not based on which political party enacted the law? Now there's a novel idea. [/sarcasm]

Article is here.

danarhea said:

Which gives me a thought - Why not rule on a law based on it's Constitutionality, and not based on which political party enacted the law? Now there's a novel idea. [/sarcasm]

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Its going to go to the Supreme Court. Thats where the real decision will be made.

First, this Court agrees with the two other district courts which have ruled that the individuals subject to § 1501’s mandate provision are either present or future participants in the national health care market. See Liberty Univ., 2010 WL 4860299, at *15 (“Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care.

Click to expand...

*SSA

So, let's get this straight, because we all will at some point need healthcare, it's okay for the Gov't to force under penalty of fines and such, to purchase health insurance deemed "right" by the Government. What a dangerous bit of... ehm "logic" there.

For those keeping score, I believe it is three rulings for and three against.

Gapeach said:

Its going to go to the Supreme Court. Thats where the real decision will be made.

Click to expand...

And the partisan divide will continue there as well, which doesn't address Dan's question....

danarhea said:

Which gives me a thought - Why not rule on a law based on it's Constitutionality, and not based on which political party enacted the law? Now there's a novel idea. [/sarcasm]

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Because contrary to what some people want to believe, "The Law" and even "The Constitution" is not some monolithic entity that has a universally proven and indisputable means of interpriting it or viewing it. You're likely seeing things come down along partisan lines not necessarily specifically because of them siding with their party but because the REASONS they're "partisan" are likely the same things that influence HOW they view "The Law" and the constitution.

Correlation doesn't equal Causation. The facts the votes are coming down upon party lines does not in and of itself prove that its happening due to "partisan" reasons rather than another explanation.

megaprogman said:

For those keeping score, I believe it is three rulings for and three against.

Click to expand...

I think that's the point of this ruling. Tie goes to the law in place. *wink wink*

megaprogman said:

For those keeping score, I believe it is three rulings for and three against.

Click to expand...

For those keeping score, it would be best to ignore megaprogman who doesn't even bother to read the OP article where it clearly states it's 3 for versus 2 against.

As far as my understanding is this entire argument is about interpretation of an act in the Constitution that deals with interstate commerce. There appear to be precedents but there is also politics involved with makes things a bit more murky. Whichever way this goes, lets hope it has to do with interpretation of that act and not politics.