• Federal Judge kills Obamacare - If the ruling holds up on appeal, Obama

    From Ubiquitous@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 15 21:05:07 2018
    XPost: alt.politics.obama, alt.politics.usa, alt.tv.pol-incorrect
    XPost: alt.politics.democrats

    Reed O’Connor, a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas, just
    killed Obamacare.

    If the ruling holds up on appeal, Obamacare is dead. As a doorknob. Not
    just the mandate or some other particular provisions.

    He killed the WHOLE THING.

    The Order (pdf.) is embedded in full at the bottom of this post.

    Here’s the short version. Texas and other states sued to declare the
    individual mandate unconstitutional because in the recent tax reform
    the penalty for failing to pay the mandate was removed. (2nd Amended
    Complaint here) With the removal of the mandate penalty, the mandate no
    longer was a function of Congress’ taxing power, which was the basis
    upon which John Roberts and the liberal Justices on the Supreme Court
    upheld the constitutionality of the mandate in 2012. The Court
    conservative and Roberts had ruled the mandate violated the Commerce
    Clause, but Roberts broke with the conservatives on the tax power

    But there’s more.

    The district court ruled that the mandate was an essential and
    inseverable part of Obamacare. Because the mandate was held to be unconstitutional and inseverable, the judge held the remainder of
    Obamacare to be unconstitutional.

    The Court did not grant an injunction, so the Trump administration is
    under no obligation to terminate programs under Obamacare unless and
    until the Order holds up on appeal.

    From the Order:

    Resolution of these claims rests at the intersection of the
    ACA, the Supreme Court’s decision in NFIB, and the TCJA. In
    NFIB, the Supreme Court held the Individual Mandate was
    unconstitutional under the Interstate Commerce Clause but
    could fairly be read as an exercise of Congress’s Tax Power
    because it triggered a tax. The TCJA eliminated that tax. The
    Supreme Court’s reasoning in NFIB—buttressed by other binding
    precedent and plain text—thus compels the conclusion that
    the Individual Mandate may no longer be upheld under the Tax
    Power. And because the Individual Mandate continues to mandate
    the purchase of health insurance, it remains unsustainable
    under the Interstate Commerce Clause—as the Supreme Court
    already held.

    Finally, Congress stated many times unequivocally—through
    enacted text signed by the President—that the Individual
    Mandate is “essential” to the ACA. And this essentiality,
    the ACA’s text makes clear, means the mandate must work
    “together with the other provisions” for the Act to function
    as intended. All nine Justices to review the ACA acknowledged
    this text and Congress’s manifest intent to establish the
    Individual Mandate as the ACA’s “essential” provision. The
    current and previous Administrations have recognized that,
    too. Because rewriting the ACA without its “essential” feature
    is beyond the power of an Article III court, the Court thus
    adheres to Congress’s textually expressed intent and binding
    Supreme Court precedent to find the Individual Mandate is
    inseverable from the ACA’s remaining provisions.

    Construing the Plaintiffs’ Application for Preliminary Injunction, (ECF
    No. 39), as a motion for partial summary judgment, the Court therefore
    DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction but GRANTS summary
    judgment on Count I of the Amended Complaint.


    The Court today finds the Individual Mandate is no longer
    fairly readable as an exercise of Congress’s Tax Power and
    continues to be unsustainable under Congress’s Interstate
    Commerce Power. The Court therefore finds the Individual
    Mandate, unmoored from a tax, is unconstitutional and GRANTS
    Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief as to Count I of
    the Amended Complaint.

    * * *

    Applying these standards, the Court finds the 2010 Congress
    expressed through plain text an unambiguous intent that the
    Individual Mandate not be severed from the ACA. Supreme Court
    precedent supports that finding. And in passing the TCJA
    through the reconciliation process, the 2017 Congress further
    entrenched the intent manifested by the 2010 Congress.

    * * *

    All told, Congress stated three separate times that the
    Individual Mandate is essential to the ACA.25 That is once,
    twice, three times and plainly. It also stated the absence of
    the Individual Mandate would “undercut” its “regulation of
    the health insurance market.” Thirteen different times,
    Congress explained how the Individual Mandate stood as the
    keystone of the ACA. And six times, Congress explained it was
    not just the Individual Mandate, but the Individual Mandate
    “together with the other provisions” that allowed the ACA to
    function as Congress intended….

    On the unambiguous enacted text alone, the Court finds the
    Individual Mandate is inseverable from the Act to which it
    is essential.28 ….

    “In sum, Congress passed the minimum coverage provision as a
    key component of the ACA.” Id. at 599 (Ginsburg, J., joined
    by Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, JJ.) (emphasis added); accord
    id. at 539 (majority) (“This case concerns constitutional
    challenges to two key provisions, commonly referred to as the
    individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion.” (emphasis
    added)). Not a key component of the guaranteed-issue and
    community-rating provisions, but of the ACA. The Supreme
    Court’s only reasoning on the topic thus supports what the
    text says: The Individual Mandate is essential to the ACA….

    In sum, the Individual Mandate “is so interwoven with [the
    ACA’s] regulations that they cannot be separated. None of
    them can stand.” Wallace, 259 U.S. at 70.

    * * *

    The Court finds the Individual Mandate “is essential to” and
    inseverable from “the other provisions of” the ACA.

    Severability was a major subject of oral argument the first time
    Obamacare came before the Supreme Court. See my March 28, 2012 post,
    Obamacare Oral Argument, Day 3 – Severability.


    Donald J. Trump
    Wow, but not surprisingly, ObamaCare was just ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL by
    a highly respected judge in Texas. Great news for America!

    Donald J. Trump
    As I predicted all along, Obamacare has been struck down as an
    UNCONSTITUTIONAL disaster! Now Congress must pass a STRONG law that
    provides GREAT healthcare and protects pre-existing conditions. Mitch
    and Nancy, get it done!

    Legal Insurrection
    What does it matter that he was appointed by GW Bush? "We do not have
    Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we
    have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level
    best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

    Sahil Kapur
    Federal judge appointed by George W. Bush sides with Texas
    in a Republican-led lawsuit to overturn core provisions of
    the ACA—including the preexisting condition protections—as

    The Trump administration backed the lawsuit in
    court.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12- 15/obamacare-core-provisions-ruled-unconstitutional-by-judge …

    Nicholas Bagley
    The Texas decision on the Affordable Care Act is out. The individual
    mandate is unconstitutional, the court rules, and the mandate can't be
    severed from the rest of the Act.

    Nicholas Bagley
    The court's decision is NOT limited to guaranteed issue and
    community rating. In the court's view -- and this is
    *absolutely* insane -- the entire Affordable Care Act is
    unconstitutional. pic.twitter.com/kHXU4E9wrH

    Legal Insurrection
    Yes, but by the time it reaches SCOTUS, how will Ms. Justice Barrett

    Greg Stohr
    This is your occasional reminder that the five justices
    who voted to uphold Obamacare in 2012 are still on the
    Supreme Court.

    Legal Insurrection

    Chris Hayes
    So weird this judge did this and also waited until after the
    election to do so
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-15/obamacare- core-provisions-ruled-unconstitutional-by-judge …

    Chad Pergram
    Pelosi on Obamacare ruling: Tonight’s district court ruling exposes the monstrous endgame of Republicans’ all-out assault on people with pre-
    existing conditions and Americans’ access to affordable health care.

    Texas v USA – Obamacare Case – District Court Order Holding Obamacare
    Mandate Unconstitutional (12!14!2018)… by Legal Insurrection on Scribd https://www.scribd.com/document/395727893/Texas-v-USA-Obamacare-Case- District-Court-Order-Holding-Obamacare-Mandate-Unconstitutional-12-14- 2018#from_embed

    [Featured Image: Barack Obama reacts to the passing of Healthcare bill
    March 2010]

    Q: Why is ObamaCare like a turd?
    A: You have to pass it to see what's in it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)