Words have consequences

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.

The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but rather whether it has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase insurance.

Judge Vinson cited Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could pass constitutional muster including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.

During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that Mrs. Clinton‘s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance and Mr. Obama‘s did not.

Congress eventually included the individual mandate in the bill it passed, and Mr. Obama signed that into law in March. Since then, he and his administration have defended its constitutionality, arguing the mandate is the linchpin that brings in more customers to insurance companies, which in turn allows those companies to expand the availability and lower the cost of coverage.

Much of Judge Vinson‘s ruling was a discussion of how the Founding Fathers, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, saw the limits on congressional power. Judge Vinson hypothesized that, under the Obama administration‘s legal theory, the government could mandate that all citizens eat broccoli.

White House officials said that sort of “surpassingly curious reading” called into question Judge Vinson‘s entire ruling.

“There’s something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis,” said a White House official who briefed reporters late Monday afternoon, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Words have consequences

  1. dprin339 says:

    whoa! somebody’s “words” are coming back to HAUNT him!
    and the way they wrote that bill, NONE of the parts can be severed without making the ENTIRE bill void.
    they put that severability clause in there to protect their precious mandate……….and now it’s going to backfire!
    that’s what happens when you use an instrument incorrectly….it backfires!
    this is soooo ironic it’s hysterical

  2. Hacksaw says:

    In striking down the law in this manner, Judge Vinson also created the framework in which the the opponents of the law can use to argue their case at the Supreme Court as well, it was absolutely brilliant how he used “The One’s” own words on the campaign trail against him – it’s one of the many documented instances in which Preident Obama directly contradicted Senator & Candidate Obama, and it’s not a very long amount of time that has passed before these many position switches, which only serves to make him look like an ass! 😀

    Another pressing issue when this case makes it’s way to the High Court, will be if “Justice” Kagan will even vote on the Court’s decision, she has a clear conflict of interest in the fact that she served as the U.S. Solicitor General arguing the case on behalf of the government when this particular case was filed by numerous state Attorneys General, and if she does the right thing & recuses herself when the Court hears this case, there is almost no possible way that the 3 remaining liberal Justices will prevail, even if the were to get Justice Kennedy to go their way for once – that would create a 4-4 tie, and in that instance then the decision of the court below (Judge Vinson’s ruling) is affirmed….this probably won’t happen, I can’t picture Justice Kagan recusing herself on such a pivitol issue for her like minded President & his signature legislation, but time will tell.

  3. myfoxmystere says:

    Obama said what??? He said whaaaaaaattttt???? Oh he did, didn’t he? How words will come back to haunt him!

  4. hybridtalk1 says:

    “Much of Judge Vinson‘s ruling was a discussion of how the Founding Fathers, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, saw the limits on congressional power. Judge Vinson hypothesized that, under the Obama administration‘s legal theory, the government could mandate that all citizens eat broccoli.”

    That is what the liberals in power want to do. They want to tell us what to eat, what to watch, what to listen to (or not, like Conservative voices), how to set our thermostats and what to drive. Enough already.

    Obama wants a new American Sputnik moment, well when they forced Obamacare on us he got it. America was galvanized to stand against big tyrannical government and put the country back on track.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s