[BJEugene]

Washington Monthly:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._08/025005.php

Virginia's comically-right-wing state attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II, filed suit in March, hoping to undermine the Affordable Care Act by claiming that an individual mandate is unconstitutional. Most legal experts, including many conservatives, find the case to be pretty frivolous -- a former Bush/Cheney U.S. attorney said the litigation not only lacks merit, but should be "seen as a political exercise" -- and Cuccinelli has struggled to explain why this isn't a waste of taxpayer money.

Obama administration attorneys hoped to bounce the case right out of court before the proceedings could get underway in earnest. In a move that will probably delight the far-right, a district court judge announced this morning that the case can proceed.A federal judge Monday refused to dismiss a Virginia lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal health-care law, handing the law's foes their first victory in a courtroom battle likely to last years.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson rejected arguments from Obama administration lawyers that Virginia has no standing to sue over the law and no chance of ultimately prevailing in its constitutional claim.Before anyone gets too excited about this, it's a procedural victory, not a measure of success on the merits. The judge didn't say Cuccinelli's right; the judge said he'd give Cuccinelli's argument a full hearing. The issue at hand today was one over "standing" -- whether Cuccinelli is in a legally justifiable position to file the lawsuit in the first place, giving the court the jurisdiction to hear the case. The administration hoped to convince Hudson that the Virginia AG hadn't even met this threshold, but the court disagreed. So, the suit lives to see another day.

Regrettably, Judge Hudson's objectivity is already in doubt. He's a Bush/Cheney appointee, and more importantly, the Huffington Post noted that the judge "has financial ties to both the attorney general who is challenging the law and to a powerhouse conservative law firm whose clients include prominent Republican officials and critics of reform." And with this step forward, this officially becomes a very expensive political exercise for the people of Virginia. For all the talk about what the shenanigans in Bell, CA have and will cost taxpayers in California, that number will be quickly dwarfed by the cost of this court challenge to the people of Virginia.

[Aw1HhC0m]

Cuccinelli is the new Tea Party darling and he's using the people of Virginia as his stepping stone onto the national platform. In addition to the health care challenge, he has authorized police in Virginia to check immigration status on anyone stopped and/or arrested, setting up the state of Virginia for another possible confrontation with the federal government. Link

A couple of days ago, the EPA rejected a petition from the Virginia AG and others seeking a court review of the findings on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. That one is here.

[MP+4]

TPM: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2....php?ref=fpblg

A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that the individual mandate contained in the health care law passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama this year is unconstitutional.

Judge Henry E. Hudson found in favor of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who brought this suit separately from the other state attorney generals suing the federal government over the law. Hudson was the first judge to rule against the law. Two other judges ruled in favor of the law, bringing the Obama administration's record thus far to 2-1. At least 13 other suits against the health care law have been dismissed on jurisdiction or standing issues.

Hudson ruled that there where "no compelling exigencies in this case" because the individual mandate doesn't take effect until 2013. Therefore, he said his ruling was declarative and not injunctive, which means it will be reviewed either by the appellate court or by the Supreme Court.

...

"At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance-or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage-it's about an individual's right to choose to participate," wrote Hudson a George W. Bush-appointee. "The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers."

[ahagotyou]

Do we also get to choose to partcipate in auto insurance?

[LottiFurmann]

That's the argument in favor. If only sick people seek insurance, premiums will skyrocket. Bringing a large volume of healthy people into the system will ensure that premiums maintain their current levels or even go down over time.

Just like with car insurance. If only people with moving violations or DUI offenses had to get insurance, premiums would skyrocket and be unaffordable to most people. The auto insurance mandate ensures that plenty of good drivers are in that pool and that's what keeps premiums where they are, and what makes good driver discounts possible.

In an ideal world, people who get regular checkups but don't get sick very often should get healthy living discounts from health insurance providers. But that won't happen if only sick people are getting insured.

[icedrakona]

By the way, there's growing discussion over assertions that this VA judge's ruling may be thrown out because he made a law-student-level error in writing his opinion. He apparently invented a new legal interpretation of the Commerce Clause as the basis for much of his opinion, and you can't do that. It's like writing a legal opinion saying that you should buy gold based on the legal premise that Glenn Beck says so.

[Broorbbub]

Didn't we hear from judge Hudson recently on some other case? A name like Henry Hudson isn't one New Yorkers often forget...

[we0MA4MI]

Looked it up. He's the guy who ruled in the Vick case!

[Kryfamid]

Mediaite:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/gover...e-of-the-year/

There are a lot of lies told each calendar year, and more so during election years. So as 2010 comes to an end, PolitiFact looked back and determined which one they thought should be their Lie of the Year. And the winner (or loser?) is: “A government takeover of health care,” a phrase they say was instrumental in stopping “President Barack Obama’s ambitious plan to overhaul America’s health insurance system.” You may be wondering why that line is the PolitiFact Lie of the Year, especially since it’s not even a complete sentence. As they explain it: PolitiFact editors and reporters have chosen “government takeover of health care” as the 2010 Lie of the Year. Uttered by dozens of politicians and pundits, it played an important role in shaping public opinion about the health care plan and was a significant factor in the Democrats’ shellacking in the November elections. They went on to note that their readers, too, selected “a government takeover of health care” as 2010’s top lie. They also made sure to say that their selection isn’t a statement or judgement. “The phrase is simply not true,” they wrote, before listing some of the claim’s inaccuracies: • Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
• Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up “exchanges” where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don’t have it.
• The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.
• The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.
• The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.

[xanaxonlinexanax]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40704352

20 states ask judge to throw out Obama health law

Published: Thursday, 16 Dec 2010 | 2:25 PM ET

PENSACOLA, Fla. - Attorneys for 20 states fighting the new federal health care law told a judge Thursday it will expand the government's powers in dangerous and unintended ways.

The states want U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to issue a summary judgment throwing out the health care law without a full trial. They argue it violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

"The act would leave more constitutional damage in its wake than any other statute in our history," David Rivkin, an attorney for the states, told Vinson.

President Barack Obama's administration counters that Americans should not be allowed to opt out of the overhaul because everyone requires medical care. Government attorneys say the states do not have standing to challenge the law and want the case dismissed.

Vinson, who was appointed to the bench almost 30 years ago by President Ronald Reagan, heard arguments Thursday but said he will rule later.

In a separate case, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson earlier this week became the first federal judge to strike down a key portion of the law when he sided with the state of Virginia and ruled the insurance requirement unconstitutional. That case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement.

In Florida, Vinson questioned how the government could halt the massive changes to the nation's health care system that have already begun. Rivkin told him the constitutional violations are more important.