VA Judge Makes Elementary Error in Health Care Ruling

[RhodaA]

Source: Talking Points Memo

“The Virginia federal district court judge who ruled yesterday that the individual mandate in the health care bill is unconstitutional is catching a lot of flack -- and not just for having a financial interest in an anti-health care reform consulting firm.
Legal experts are attacking Judge Henry Hudson's decision on the merits, citing an elementary logical flaw at the heart of his opinion. And that has conservative scholars -- even ones sympathetic to the idea that the mandate is unconstitutional -- prepared to see Hudson's decision thrown out.”

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/amateur-hour-va-judge-makes-elementary-error-in-health-care-ruling.php?ref=fpa



Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/amateur-hour-va-judge-makes-elementary-error-in-health-care-ruling.php?ref=fpa

[tcaudilllg]

1. Fallacious thinking'll GETCHA!

[elleng]

2. Good. Details:

'Kerr and others note that Hudson's argument against Congress' power to require people to purchase health insurance rests on a tautology.

The key portion of the ruling reads:


If a person's decision not to purchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically an attempt to enforce such provision under the Necessary and Proper Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution.

Kerr notes that this is all wrong. The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to take steps beyond those listed in the Constitution to achieve its Constitutional ends, including the regulation of interstate commerce. Hudson's argument wipes a key part of the Constitution out of existence. Kerr says Hudson "rendered a nullity."'

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

3. the Insurance companies will be glad to hear that

they were probably worried that they might not get this huge increase in forced business.

[area51]

6. +1 n/t

[obxhead]

19. Very happy to hear that.

A guaranteed profit margin with forced participation. Many CEO's would literally kill for a law to provide that to their company.

[Scurrilous]

4. Heh.

:thumbsup:

[AC_Mem]

5. This is why they will lose on their attempts

When judges are making rulings based on emotional feelings and personal financial interests around a subject, it completely undermines the justice system that they represent. This is clearly a conflict of interest compounded with personal FEELINGS against health care availability for everyone.

I hope that this is thrown out and that he is made as an example to others who would undermine the efforts to give health care to everyone as a basic human right.

The right must be stopped in this nonsense. We have a law that was passed after a year of hard debate, let it go and focus on the insurance companies, who are trying to break the working class by raising our rates so high that we will look at this as health care reform instead of what it is and should be - INSURANCE reform!!!

Annette
fed up and ready for them to regulate the insurance companies NOW

[PoliticAverse]

24. Regulating health insurance companies?

How do you think that's going to work out with republicans controlling the house and stonewalling in the Senate?

[gratuitous]

7. It's still a very lonesome ruling

There have been more than 10 rulings by other federal judges that the individual mandate is constitutional. Judge Hudson's opinion won't make much headway against the other rulings, especially if it rests on a logical fallacy.

[alstephenson]

8. You certainly wouldn't learn that from the MSM.

The great source of misinformation.

[Abq_Sarah]

9. Talking points, indeed.

[kelly1mm]

10. If choosing not to purchase something (economic inactivity) can be

found to be commerce for the purposes of the commerce clause, could my decision not to buy a brand new car at least every five years also be found to be commerce and subject to a fine? I am not asking if this is likely, just does the furtherance of the principle make sense?

If you think it is different can you say why

If so, is this OK with the supporters of this law?

If not, why not?

[BzaDem]

11. It doesn't need to be valid under the commerce clause. It just has to be valid under the necessary

and proper clause.

The pre-existing condition regulation is valid under the commerce clause (and no one disputes that). The mandate is necessary for the function of that regulation to work (basically all healthcare economists agree). Therefore, the mandate is constitutional under the necessary and proper clause (which makes it irrelevant whether or not it would be valid only under the commerce clause).

[kelly1mm]

12. OK, assuming I accept your argument, would a mandate to purchase

a new car every five years or face a fine pass constitutional muster? If not (since the manufacture and sale of automobiles is commerce) why not?

[BzaDem]

What regulation would the new car mandate be necessary for?

To figure out if something passes muster under the necessary and proper clause, it is not enough to just know the law in question. You have to know what law Congress is claiming that it is necessary to.

[kelly1mm]

17. To promote the econmic activity in US manufacturing which will

lower unemployment rates and increase tax revenue to the federal government through income and payroll taxes (modify it to buy a new vehicle with at least 50% US made parts and assembled in the US at least every five years or pay a $2500 penalty)

[Frank Booth]

18. Could be. If there were a showing that the requirement is necessary and proper

to promote those ends. Whether there would be that showing is another question. Necessary and proper is given a fairly broad reading though so an argument could be made that the requirement would be proper.

The problem would lie with congress for passing the legislation, not the courts for letting congress do its job.

[kelly1mm]

20. OK - thanks for the analysis! Although I do not think congress should

have the right to force anyone to engage in economic activity or face a penalty, either under the commerce clause or the necessesary and proper clause, I have enjoyed the discussion.

[lfairban]

21. U R A lawyer, right?

I think I am starting to understand the argument at hand.

Thanks

[Frank Booth]

16. It would probably depend on the purpose of the legislation.

But it's not really relevant.

The problem with the decision is that it equates the necessary and proper clause with the commerce clause, when they're actually different. The point of the necessary and proper clause is that it allows the government to use means that do not necessarily involve interstate commerce to achieve ends that are based in interstate commerce. Here, the government's argument is that requiring the purchase of insurance is a necessary and proper means of implementing this national health-care law, which certainly implicates interstate commerce. The judge completely missed all that.

[Frank Booth]

13. That's correct. Good analysis.

You obviously understand the issue better than Judge Hudson and his law clerk.

The article refers to a "tautology". The error in the decision is not really a tautology, though, it's just a basic misunderstanding of the necessary and proper clause.

[kelly1mm]

15. So can the federal government constitutionally mandate the purchase

of a new vehicle every 5 years or face a penalty?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

14. I'm kind of wondering this too

Instead of the bailout, why didn't Congress just pass a law requiring every American to purchase a car from GM every year? Would have saved/created a bunch of jobs and rejuvenated the American auto industry.

[Toucano]

22. He's a Dubya appointee. Was there the expectation that he would be smart?

Elementary logic is not their stock and trade.

[kickysnana]

23. Meme. Propaganda. Wish we still had balanced news. n/t