Saturday, November 27, 2010

Health Law Faces Threat of Undercut From Courts - We Can Only Hope!

On the road to a Republican majority and Presidency in 2012, the courts are an integral part of the campaign to stop ObamaCare and the takeover of 1/6th of our economy by the Federal government.

Yesterday I posted a Glenn Beck video showing the establishment of an unbelievable number of Federal agencies under ObamaCare. If you have not viewed it,you should. Health care quality and affordability are not the object of this legislation by the Democrats. The object is the control of our economy and we, the people.

As the Obama administration presses ahead with the health care law, officials are bracing for the possibility that a federal judge in Virginia will soon reject its central provision as unconstitutional and, in the worst case for the White House, halt its enforcement until higher courts can rule.

The judge, Henry E. Hudson of Federal District Court in Richmond, has promised to rule by the end of the year on the constitutionality of the law’s requirement that most Americans obtain insurance, which takes effect in 2014.

Although administration officials remain confident that it is constitutionally valid to compel people to obtain health insurance, they also acknowledge that Judge Hudson’s preliminary opinions and comments could presage the first ruling against the law.

“He’s asked a number of questions that express skepticism,” said one administration official who is examining whether a ruling against part of the law would undermine other provisions. “We have been trying to think through that set of questions,” said the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case freely.

The administration argues that other key provisions do not depend on the insurance mandate. Those provisions include establishing health insurance exchanges, subsidizing premiums through tax credits and expanding Medicaid eligibility, all scheduled for 2014.

Nor, administration officials said, would an adverse ruling necessarily undermine certain insurance regulations that recently took effect, like the requirement that insurers cover children younger than 26 on their parents’ policies.

In a hearing last month, Judge Hudson remarked on the difficulty of determining Congress’s intent regarding a law with hundreds of disparate provisions. “This bill has more moving parts than a Swiss watch,” he said.

Lawyers for Virginia have sought to turn one of the federal government’s arguments on its head. They note that the health law explicitly refers to the insurance requirement as “an essential part” of the act’s regulatory scheme, and that Justice Department lawyers — in pressing their point that the law permissibly regulates commerce — have called it the “linchpin.”

If it is so essential, Virginia’s lawyers have asked, why should a judge believe that Congress intended for the rest of the act to stand without it?

Read full NYT article here.

No comments:

Post a Comment