Thread: Judge: States must continue with health overhaul

Judge: States must continue with health overhaul

The Associated Press
Posted: 03/03/2011 11:27:58 AM MST

PENSACOLA, Fla.—A federal judge in Florida says states must continue implementing the president's health care overhaul even though he has declared it unconstitutional.

Florida and 25 states sued to block the law, and District Judge Roger Vinson has ruled in their favor.

He says Obama administration attorneys have one week to appeal. If they don't meet that deadline, Vinson says the states can consider the law invalid.

The case is one of several challenges to the health care law, which is almost certain to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his ruling, Vinson says it's in the best interest of the nation to continue with the massive health overhaul while the cases work their way through the legal system.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/nationworld/ci_17530473

Ruling won't stand in way of healthcare reform implementation

The healthcare law can continue to be implemented, says a Florida judge who earlier ruled the law unconstitutional. Judge Roger E. Vinson has backed an Obama administration request to stay his ruling while the law is reviewed by appellate courts.

By Noam N. Levey
Washington Bureau
March 3, 2011, 11:28 a.m.

Washington — Handing the Obama administration a legal victory, the federal judge in Florida who ruled the new healthcare law unconstitutional has cleared the way for continued implementation of the sweeping overhaul.

In a ruling released Thursday, Judge Roger E. Vinson, one of two federal judges who have said that the federal government cannot require Americans to get health insurance, stood by his Jan. 31 conclusion that the insurance mandate invalidates the whole law.

But he backed the administration's request that his earlier ruling be stayed while appellate courts review the constitutionality of the new law.

Vinson called on the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta to expedite that process so the healthcare law could be considered by the nation's highest court.

"The sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the better off the entire nation will be," Vinson wrote.

Federal appellate courts in Virginia and Michigan are also reviewing constitutional challenges to the healthcare law that President Obama signed last March.

In total, three federal judges have ruled that Congress has the authority under the so-called Commerce Clause of the Constitution to require Americans to get health insurance, a mandate seen as critical to regulating insurance and guaranteeing that all citizens can get coverage.

Two judges, including Vinson, have concluded that the requirement would improperly open the door to federally imposed mandates to purchase other products.

Vinson's ruling had been the most closely watched, however, in part because the plaintiffs in the case include 26 states, all but one of which is represented by a Republican governor or attorney general.

Vinson also set off a legal firestorm by appearing to throw out the entire law, even though he concluded that only the insurance mandate was unconstitutional.

In contrast, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, who ruled for the state of Virginia in its challenge to the law, only concluded that that section of the mammoth law with the insurance mandate should be thrown out.

Vinson's original ruling, which some interpreted as a green light for states to stop implementing the health overhaul, prompted the Obama administration to seek the stay.

And Thursday, Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler applauded Vinson's latest ruling. "We appreciate the court's recognition of the enormous disruption that would have resulted if implementation of the Affordable Care Act was abruptly halted," she said in a statement.

Karen Harned, executive director of the legal center at the National Federation of Independent Business, which joined the states in suing to overturn the law, hailed the call for an expedited review.

"As Judge Vinson noted, it is in the best interest for all Americans for this case to be resolved, ultimately by the U.S. Supreme Court, as quickly as is practically possible," she said.

Vinson gave the Obama administration seven days to file an appeal, something Schmaler said the administration would be doing.

noam.levey@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 3259.story

Quite the opposite actually.

The Judge ordered that under condition Obamacare can continue to push through Obamacare.

The DOJ has ONE week to appeal and MUST file for an expidiadiated appeal to either the SC or 11th circuit court.

Now we all know there are a dozen different challenges to Obamacare. The Obama administration has been stalling as long as possible this one specific challenge trying to get a different challenge to the SC when time finally comes.... a challenge that is far weaker and less likely to be found unConstitutional.

The Florida Judges ruling put in question has basically told the Obama administration if they wish to continue they can BUT they need to accept the SC needs to hear this ASAP and request an expidiated appeal preferably to the SC.

Now with all that its a major defeat for the Obama administration. The most likely suit against Obamacare will be the one up first. If they don't put forth an appeal within a week for an expidiated appeal the entirity of Obamacare is basically been Judicially ordered to be stopped from going forward.

Keep in mind this is by far the strongest case against Obamacare and IF another case reaches the SC it has a much less chance of winning in our favor. Plus if the SC finds Obamacare Constitutional on another suit it won't hear any others likely and just say to use the ruling we wouldn't support.

WA Senate OKs bill to set up fed health care law

OLYMPIA, Wash.

Washington state Senators approved on party-line votes a bill that begins to lay the ground work for the federal health care overhaul in this state.

Senators approved on a 27-22 vote setting up a state health insurance exchange -- a public-private association designed to promote competition and drive down costs for individuals and smaller businesses when the federal law is fully implemented.

Under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, states are required to set up these exchanges by Jan. 1, 2014.

Kent Democratic Sen. Karen Keiser says that lawmakers are taking this step to avoid the federal government to make decisions for the state. Under the federal law, the federal government will establish the exchange if the state fails to do so.

The constitutionality of the federal care health care overhaul law is being challenged by more than two dozen attorneys general, including Washington's Rob McKenna.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financia ... NUHH01.htm

Judge clears way for implementation of health-care law in states that are challenging it
Video

By N.C. AizenmanWashington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 3, 2011; 9:22 PM

A federal judge in Florida who earlier ruled the new health-care law unconstitutional said Thursday that implementation can proceed in the 26 states that mounted the legal challenge while the Obama administration pursues an appeal.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson attached two conditions to the "stay" of his ruling: The administration must file its appeal within seven days and it must request an expedited review from either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

"Almost everyone agrees that the Constitutionality of the Act is an issue that will ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States," Vinson wrote. "It is very important to everyone in this country that this case move forward as soon as practically possible."

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the administration would seek fast-track consideration from the 11th Circuit, just as it has with other challenges to the law that have reached circuit courts.
However, a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is highly unlikely. The administration has opposed an effort by Virginia to do so in a similar but separate case. And the states party to the Florida suit have made clear they do not intend to pursue that avenue, either.
The suit is one of 20 pending against the law. Vinson's original Jan. 31 decision was one of two to rule against it. Like the judge in Virginia's suit, Vinson found the law's requirement that virtually all Americans obtain health insurance beginning in 2014 to be unconstitutional.
But Vinson, who like the Virginia judge was a Republican appointee, went a step further, ruling that the insurance mandate was so inextricably linked to the rest of the law that the entire statute should be invalidated.
Three other federal judges, all Democratic appointees, have upheld the law, most recently Judge Gladys Kessler in the District of Columbia.
Technically, the administration had not requested a stay of Vinson's order voiding the law, but rather a clarification of whether he had intended to halt the law's rollout pending appeals.
The confusion stemmed from Vinson's decision not to formally enjoin the law in his original order; instead he suggested that it was "the functional equivalent" of an injunction because it's presumed the federal government automatically complies with such judgements.
This formulation provoked a flurry of conflicting interpretations from lawyers for both sides as well as among legal scholars.
Republican governors and attorneys general of three states party to the suit - Alaska, Florida and Wisconsin - immediately declared that in their states, at least, the law is now "dead."

In the weeks since, they have also returned some state planning funds provided through the law. But they have kept other funds, and they did not take steps to undo provisions of the law that had already taken effect.
By contrast, governors of several other states that are also part of the challenge said they believed that until the appeals process is completed, the statute remains in effect and they must comply with it.
In his opinion Thursday, Vinson rebuked the administration for suggesting that his original order was ambiguous, writing that he clearly meant for it to have the "practical" effect of an injunction that could only be lifted if the government requested a stay.
"It was not expected that [the government] would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgement for two-and-one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to 'clarify,' " the judge wrote.
In an example of scathing language he employed throughout the decision, Vinson added that the administration's claim that its delay was due to the need for careful analysis, "seems contradictory to media reports that the White House declared within hours after entry of my order that 'implementation will proceed apace.' " And, at another point he wrote that one of the administration's arguments "borders on misrepresentation."
Still, since administration lawyers had made clear that if the judge responded that they needed a stay, they intended to request one, Vinson said he would "save time" by treating the government's motion for clarification as one also requesting a stay.
In granting it, the judge pointed to the other cases pending against the law and the conflicting opinions from other courts.
Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell (R) issued a statement saying that although he now considers the law back in effect, he would still be reluctant to apply for federal implementation funds.
"I continue to strongly prefer to use state resources for state-based health-care solutions to increase access and improve affordability, rather than become more entangled," he said.
aizenmann@washpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03800.html