BREAKING: Obamacare struck down as UnConstitutional by FL Federal Judge

The end of the Beginning or the beginning of the End?  Details to follow.

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.”

"solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house"
Another Triumph of Border Security
  • Roy

    I’m starting to feel better already.

  • Rodney G. Graves



  • kathie

    Don’t you just love it when SANITY wins?

  • Pretzel Logic

    If this sticks, think of the campaigning against Barry and the two years of supreme political capital he pissed away on this cluster schtup.

  • Mycroft

    About flippin time someone did his job correctly in the government.

  • gaius piconius

    Promising, promising, but, can the country be this lucky?

  • Jeff

    at this rate Obama will be running on a Repeal ObamaCare platform in 2012 …

  • Chip

    Poor Judge is going to have his whole life splatted all over the front pages and top stories of all the liberal media.

    But, hey, this is a good start to getting rid of that monstrosity of a law that no one bothered to read.

  • Winston Wolf

    Well, let’s not start sucking each other’s dicks quite yet. Just last week a court knocked Rahm Emmanuel off the mayor’s ballot only to be overturned a couple days later.

    It’s not over until Diana Ross and the Supremes sing.

  • irongrampa

    Cue the Fat Lady.

    Great idea, when the Dems tweaked the bill before the Senate got it again, they neglected to add a severability clause. That’s simple boiler-plate for any legislation thought to be controversial.

    Bless their incompetent little hearts.

  • Gmac

    Its a start, a very GOOD start.

  • jim m

    Dems are already saying that severability is implied and liberal justices are supporting that reading.

    In other words the dems are already saying that it doesn’t mater what the law actually say it is what they meant it to say that counts. Fortunately, obama has not yet been able to appoint a majority of justices to the SCOTUS so we might still have a functional rule of law in this country.

  • Peter F.

    I hear liberals grumbling from coast to coast, “Ah….stupid 10th Amendment….who needs it anyway….”

  • Roy

    World’s safest bet: Tomorrow’s NYT will have an article or column about out-of-control judicial activism.

  • Sir Toby Belch

    How can Obama focus “like a laser” on JOBS,JOBS,JOBS when Mubarik may be
    kabobbed any minute, a judge has just stuck a pin
    in his HealthCare balloon, and Olberman
    has been canned? I guess he picked the wrong
    week to stop smoking…..I’m beginning to
    feel for the arrogant clod.

  • Pretzel Logic

    when does HE figure out the Constitution applies to him also?

  • DaveD

    Not only should the mandate disqualify this legislation but when it looks like Obama is on a roll to grant the same number of waivers as there are pages to this bill you pretty much get an idea what a boondoggle this piece of crap is.

  • Vagabond

    Hey Chuckie! which branch of the government did that?

  • Jay Guevara

    Looks like an outbreak of common sense.

    Good thing, or otherwise the next stop would be requiring us to buy Windows Vista.

  • G.

    YES! The B.S. penalty flag finally got thrown!

  • Upset Old Guy

    Chip’s comment (#8) could quickly come to pass. It seems the judge referenced Obama’s statement during his pre-election run for the presidency to the effect that a mandate was not suitable to solve the health care problem. I guess we might not have to wait too long to see if the msm and liberal pundits retaliate against him.

  • Steve Crickmore

    Individual mandates, ‘forcing’ people to buy health insurance- whether they can afford it or not, from private insurers was always a dumb idea; the providence of which from the Cato Institute to Romney to Hillary Clinton should have told Obama something. Indeed, he was a strongly against in 2007/8 , before he was for it-

  • irongrampa

    And of course there’s always the possibility that SCOTUS will simply look at this ruling and let it stand.

    I’d pay money to see that.

  • Jeff Blogworthy

    The federal government is the arbiter of its own powers. Has it worked out well so far?

  • GarandFan

    LOUD SCREECH followed by SOBBING heard coming from the Office of the House Minority Leader!

    Film at 11!

  • jim m

    Meanwhile, the White House doubles down on stupid:

    On the White House’s blog, spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter writes: “Today’s ruling – issued by Judge Vinson in the Northern District of Florida – is a plain case of judicial overreaching.” She continues: “Those who claim that the “individual responsibility” provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes “inactivity” are simply wrong. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us.”

    So are people who don’t get mortgages, or buy cars, or use public transportation, or eat broccoli, etc. etc. If Congress can regulate this then by the same logic they can regulate anything and everything.

    Now that all 47 GOP Senators have signed on to the repeal bill it will be interesting to see if they can get a handfull of dems to join them. I’d love to see obama telling the us public to go screw as he vetoes the repeal in the face of over half the states suing his administration.

  • GarandFan

    Wonder what the WH spokeshole will say when SCOTUS overturns ObamaCare.

    Or does Barry also think he can veto a ruling from them?

  • jim m

    Judge Vinson also ruled that the whole of the obamacare law is unconstitutional as it is unseverable.

    A fun fact about ObamaCare: Unlike virtually every other federal statute, it contains no “severabililty clause” at the end requesting that if any part of it should be held unconstitutional in court, the rest should be preserved as good law. Vinson actually mentions that fact in the opinion and notes that an earlier draft of the law did contain such a clause, suggesting that it was deliberately dropped because even Congress agrees that you can’t sever any one part from such an elaborate scheme. – (Via Hotair)

    This is the first ruling invalidating the whole of the law. The SCOTUS has no choice but to take this up and will likely do so in the next term. I am sure that we can expect a 5 to 4 ruling on this one. I wonder whether we will get to keep our rights or if they will say that Congress has the right to make even the tiniest of decisions for us.

  • glenn

    Why do you think Barry called out the Supreme Court last year. Preparing the ground.

  • Jay Guevara

    LOUD SCREECH followed by SOBBING heard coming from the Office of the House Minority Leader!

    Her staff might have neglected to cover a mirror.

  • john

    The end of the Beginning or the beginning of the End?

    Neither, clearly. Just another differing opinion in a case that has already had multiple other differing opinions.

    Two other federal judges have already upheld the law and a federal judge in Virginia ruled the insurance mandate unconstitutional but stopped short of voiding the entire thing.

    I imagine the SCOTUS will have even yet another differing opinion.

  • LiberalNitemare

    You might think that a constitutional scholar would have been on the look out for this sort of thing.

  • PBunyan

    “when the Dems tweaked the bill before the Senate got it again, they neglected to add a severability clause. That’s simple boiler-plate for any legislation thought to be controversial.”

    “Dems are already saying that severability is implied and liberal justices are supporting that reading.”

    It doesn’t matter what the Dems say or what clauses they put in the bill. The mandate is not severable as it was the only way the plan could even begin to work. Now, thoughtful, intelligent people knew that even working at it’s best, Obamacare was going to destroy the private insurance companies (as it was ultimately designed to do), but without the mandate the Dems can’t even pretend that that wasn’t their plan all along.

    There is no way the insurance companies could provide all the coverage Obamacare was forcing on them without forcing EVERYONE to pay for it, and pay dearly for it. If you only took away the mandate buy kept the rest of that Marxist piece of shit legislation, everyone who currently does have insurance would see their premiums “necessarily skyrocket”, probably by a factor of 5 or more. Actually all but the most wealthy would loose coverage long before then.

    Even with the mandate that would have happened, of course. Obama and his comrade’s plan all along was to wait until the premiums increased enough to cause everyone to loose their coverage, and then pass their Communist Mandate a.k.a. “Public Option” because they just had no choice– Barack’s teleprompter would have told us all, as he had said, how much they didn’t want to do it, you see, but let him be straight with us, they just had no choice.

    So it’s a very, very good thing that the courts trashed the whole 2000 plus page, anti-American wad of feces and not just the mandate part. The Supreme Court will uphold today’s decision– as bad as things are the big court is still only 4/9th’s diehard communist. I figured this would happen all along.

    Now we must all pray that the Republicans don’t try to replace it with some “compromise” half communist legislation. The Dems did not compromise when they were in power. There are some really good things that can be done to improve our already excellent healthcare system but nothing in Obamacare is worth saving or compromising on. Good riddance.

  • Les Nessman

    Remember when Bugeye Pelosi was asked about the Constitutionality of the bill?
    Remember when she said “Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?”?
    Remember how the MSM snickered at anyone who even DARED to bring up the Constitutionality issue? As if it wasn’t even a worthy question.
    Remember that?

  • 914

    “You might think that a constitutional scholar would have been on the look out for this sort of thing.”

    A scholar? Yes. But whoever said he was one?

    Oh, that’s right. He did.

  • jim m

    Technically, he never claimed it. His sycophants did for him. He taught a class on constitutional law, but the subject matter covered was Alinski class warfare BS.

    His most detailed statements on the constitution came on a chicago radio station where he said that the constitution was “seriously flawed” because was a list of “negative rights” that restricted the action of government. He wanted a constitution that declared what rights the government had over the people that they could not stop or defend against.