Tweet
Florida District Court Judge Roger Vinson has ordered a stay on his own ruling voiding the Affordable Care Act because of Constitutional issues. This will allow states and the federal government to continue to implement the health care law while the case is under appeal.
Vinson actually framed the order as a “clarification” to his order from last month. Some states were using the ruling to stop implementation of the law. Vinson cleared this up by staying the ruling, provided that the Justice Department appeal to a higher court within one week. He didn’t let the opportunity go by without a long recapitulation of his arguments on the constitutionality of the law, as well as some grumbling that this clarification was unnecessary and the defendants should have simply filed a motion to appeal immediately, but ultimately, this is what matters:
After careful consideration of the factors noted above, and all the arguments set forth in the defendants’ motion to clarify, I find that the motion, construed as a motion for stay, should be GRANTED. However, the stay will be conditioned upon the defendants filing their anticipated appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court.
Spokeswoman for the Justice Department Tracy Schmaler said in a statement, “We appreciate the court’s recognition of the enormous disruption that would have resulted if implementation of the Affordable Care Act was abruptly halted. We welcome the court’s granting of a stay to allow the current programs and consumer protections, including tax credits to small business and millions of dollars in federal grants to help states with health care costs, to continue pending our appeal in the Eleventh Circuit. ”
While ultimately, Vinson stayed the ruling because of a desire to get the issue quickly determined by a higher court, he also concedes in his order that the Justice Department has a likelihood of success on appeal, as do the plaintiffs. “Although I strongly believe that expanding the Commerce power to permit Congress to regulate and mandate mental decisions not to purchase health insurance (or any other product or service) would emasculate much of the rest of the Constitution and effectively remove all limitations on the power of the federal government, I recognize that others believe otherwise,” Vinson writes. He’s a modest man.
In fact, three Democratic-appointed judges have upheld the individual mandate, while two Republican-appointed judges have found it unconstitutional. The case is almost certain to go to the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, Congress, the White House, federal agencies and the states can continue to implement the law.
6 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
The Arizona State Legislature has established a Standing Committee and titled, The Nullification Committee. Therefore, the premise to insure and assure itself that it can exempt itself from Federal Public Policies and which for them, are deemed disadvantageous to their perceived “state’s rights”. Aahh, the Bircheristas have now unmasked themselves and for all to see.
In the meantime, Pima County, a Democratic Party bastion, has taken the 10-year farce (A sly use of some tongue-in-cheek humor here) in the overall effort to create a Baja Arizona, that will remain within the legal jurisdiction of the United States.
Therefore, this “nationalistic rhetoric” continues apace.
Jaango
It is revealing to know that the administration of justice and interpretation of the Constitution by the Judicial Branch depends entirely on partisanship.
from the PPACA:
Congress made some findings!
Hey, the PPACA is just the beginning. The Congress might make some more findings. Think mandatory auto repair insurance, homeowners insurance, and pet, fire, life and flight insurance. Think about how forcing Coloradans to buy flood insurance would help all those people in Florida and Louisiana. All those voters! Let the findings continue.
When the story begins: “Florida District Court Judge . . . ” it appears like this is a state judge.
In any case, his ruling didn’t/doesn’t apply outside of the (Fed) District within which he sits, so he wasn’t stopping much of anyone. Admittedly, a number of Repub governors used his ruling as a reason not to proceed, but those govs’ decisions were not because this judge had in any way required them to hold up.
A bit silly given everyone has “health” needs and the other items you mention do not involve 100% of the population where we have already as a society agreed to cover everyones cost via taxes to pay for the ER if they have no insurance. But the odds are only 55/45 in favor of the USSC OK’ing the law.
Meanwhile while Medicare for all is a better approach, the mandated with minor “punishment” ins route can work as proven in Japan (and Germany).
But to work it needs the other two things Japan has mandatory that we do not – that all health service centers/hospitals be non-profit, and that all service providers and drug pushers charge the exact same price for a given service or drug with that price being the one that the government announces each year.
Without cost containment at this level – and not a “marketplace (read local monopoly)” level – there is no hope for our economy. I was well in my 5th decade in the industry, at a management level, when I retired – and I know how prices will be set if the only current brake on cost – namely the few states that have minimum loss ratios for claims relative to premiums – is bypassed by selling across state lines. If Fox News is in favor it seems the truth is always the opposite – at least in the health care debate.