Dear Friends: I have been deluged with profit-center activity; it seems there is an enhanced regulatory environment in the state of California! 🙂
That being said, a HOT new ruling about Obamacare requires punditry…which is really, really cool. Ding-dong, the mandate is dead — or at least unconstitutional!
Here are some excerpts from a press release prepared by yours truly, in which I noted: As the actual workings of Obamacare’s components have become known, I don’t know one instance in which it has worked better than what was originally in place. For example, premiums have gone up for thousands of people, and children have been denied access to coverage.
Excellent extra irony-factor: Judge Hudson’s ruling comes during the Christmas season, and it was last year during the holiday season that the current set of nincompoops tried to foist this unholy mess on the American people. As Sarah Bond noted: “This was a great Christmas present from Judge Hudson; we hope it is a gift that keeps giving, for the sake of our country.“
“We won if only this battle, that means this win is for the PEOPLE unlike the mandate which was not,” said Dawn Wildman, President of the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition (SCTRC). “We are proud of this victory! and hope it is the first of many!”
Two other friends also chimed in:
“This is a great victory for the American people, the rule of law and the constitutional principles of individual liberty and freedom,” said Mark Meckler, national co-coordinator of Tea Party Patriots. “Although this ruling has a long journey before it reaches the Supreme Court, we are confident that this massive congressional mistake will continue to be found unconstitutional.”
“It is difficult to imagine a more massive repudiation of ObamaCare than the recent November election, however, this ruling adds tremendous judicial weight to the votes cast by the American people,” said Jenny Beth Martin,” national co-coordinator of Tea Party Patriots. “ObamaCare is unconstitutional, and we are confident that the Supreme Court will ultimately protect the American people from a reckless congressional mistake.
SLOBs also weigh in. Beers with Demo asks: Justice Kennedy, are you ready for your close-up?
It’s worth a full read, but the meat of the matter is here:
It’s important yet somehow not important to note that the judge upheld the other provisions of the law, striking down only the individual mandate.
The ObamaCare law as written contains no severability clause which allows other portions of the law to stand even if one portion of the law is found unconstitutional.
Well, how come there is no severability clause?
Word around the campfire is that in their haste to rush this thing to a Senate floor vote last Christmas Eve, they simply forgot it, natch. A competing theory holds that the severability clause was purposely omitted to mollify competing interests so that if one interest’s portion gets taken down the whole thing gets taken down. For a legislative body that completely forgot to add language exempting themselves from ObamaCare, we’re inclined to go with the Keystone Cops theory.
UPDATE: B-Daddy Notes that he is not celebrating yet, and has a look at both pro and con arguments related to this ruling. Here is the crux of that punditry: Even though I am in agreement with the outcome of the case, the tide of historical case law is running against Judge Hudson’s ruling. However, given that this ruling would remove any limit on the Congress under the Commerce Clause, I am not sure that the Supreme Court will want to set such a precedent.