The Extreme Activism Of Judge Vinson -- Who gives a "shout out" to the tea party in ruling.

[jefferson_dem]

The Extreme Activism Of Judge Vinson
Brian Beutler | January 31, 2011, 3:34PM

For most people, an "activist judge" is one whose opinions they don't agree with. But Judge Vinson's ruling today -- that the entire health care law must be voided because he found one provision unconstitutional -- really meets an indisputable definition of "activist."

Vinson tossed the entire thing because it lacked a "severability clause," which would have compartmentalized the legislation itself and forced judges to weigh individual sections on their own merits. But the standard is not that an unseverable law should be stricken in its entirety. Noted liberal activist judge John Roberts recently struck a sole provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley law, which likewise lacks a severability clause.

"We agree with the Government that the unconsti­tutional tenure provisions are severable from the remain­der of the statute," he wrote.

Simply ruling against the mandate puts any judge on the opposite side of the vast majority of expert legal opinion. But given that ruling, a less "activist" judge could have stricken the mandate, along with directly relevant provisions -- like guaranteed issue and the ban on discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. Vinson decided instead to "legislate from the bench" and scrap the subsidies, regulations, marketplaces, and other goodies the law creates that really have nothing to do with the mandate as well.

It's new frontiers in partisan judging.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/author_blogs/2011/01/the-extreme-activism-of-judge-vinson.php

Health Care Reform Struck Down in Florida District Court
Posted Monday, January 31, 2011 2:59 PM | By David Weigel

The decision is out now, and Judge Roger Vinson has basically struck down the entire health care bill. I'll post the decision when I get it.

The money graf, in which Vinson strikes down the entire law -- which, because of the mess in the Senate and House, lacked severability:

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

UPDATE: The decision is below, but here's more of Vinson's thinking.

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/31/florida-district-court-rules-against-health-care-reform.aspx

[abluelady]

1. My Suggestion Would Be

that every uninsured American put their congressman's name and address on their medical forms when it asks "who is responsible for payment." It is outrageous how we are expected to handle our health care.

[pinto]

2. Ah geez. Could the correlation with the tax on tea and the Boston Tea Party be any more blatant...

:banghead:

[hootinholler]

7. Um, I might not have this straight, but...

Wasn't the Boston Tea Party about the Stamp Act, and the tea cargo just a convenient target to make a statement?

:shrug:

I'm a little fuzzy there.

-Hoot

[ShadowLiberal]

8. No, Britain repealed all taxes except for the Tea act, which helped cause the Boston Tea Party

Britain was forced to give in to political pressure from the colonists and repeal numerous taxes before the Boston Tea Party, such as the Stamp Act. However, the one tax that already existed that Britain decided to stick to their guns on was the Tea Tax. That's why the colonists threw it in the ocean, so they wouldn't have to pay the taxes on it.

(Interesting historical side note, the tea company who's tea was dumped still exists today. The King compensated them for the cost of the lost tea after they requested it. The tea company also sells a 'Boston Tea Party' brand of tea today.)

Also I definitely agree, this judge's ruling was blatant judicial activism to the extreme.

[ProSense]

3. Republicans are thrilled about "activist court rulings"

Steve Benen

<...>

Republicans are thrilled, of course, because activist court rulings are to be celebrated, just so long as it's activism the right can agree with.

Second Update: It's also worth emphasizing that two Republican-appointed federal district court judges have now found that the individual mandate -- an idea Republicans came up with -- is unconstitutional. And while that's important, let's not forget two other federal district court judges, appointed by Democratic presidents, came to the opposite conclusion.

Indeed, overall, about a dozen federal courts have dismissed challenges to the health care law.

In other words, when you hear on the news that "courts" have a problem with the Affordable Care Act, remember that it's actually a minority of the judges who've heard cases related to the law.

[damntexdem]

4. And the original Tea Party was not about a tax on tea.

It was about a tax on tea instituted without representation.

Remember "no taxation without representation"? Apparently the judge doesn't.

[treestar]

5. Tried to read some of the decision

There is some issue that never before has someone had to buy something - prior uses of the commerce power were over things people were already doing. Interesting. Being compelled to use some money to buy insurance (those who are subsidized couldn't complain) and those who can afford it but would do so anyway - we're talking about protecting the rights of those who could afford to buy insurance but choose not to.

They can just be left out of the system, if they are that stupid.

[Ikonoklast]

10. That's my feeling. Don't want to purchase health insurance? Fine. Don't.

But you will get exactly *zero* taxpayers dollars when you eventually get sick or hurt.

You are on your own, well and truly, you rugged individualist, you.

You must not be allowed to game the system and sign up for health insurance the day after you get hit by that car, or there will be no system.

[hootinholler]

6. "Noted liberal activist judge John Roberts" - WTF?!?

Liberal? What. The. Fuck?

-Hoot

[Clio the Leo]

9. "Why Vinson’s Ruling Will Harm The Anti-Obamacare Crusade"

(another article)

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/01/31/florida-ruling/