Judge Overturns ObamaCare “Reluctantly” with Obama’s Own Campaign Promise

The federal judge who has “thrown out” the national health care law as unconstitutional YES, is a Republican Ronald Reagan appointee, but he made his decision to negate the entire ObamaCare law partially on the basis of President Obama’s OWN WORDS. More than that, the judge expressed his REGRET that he had to rule so broadly, because he agrees that health care reform is needed.

The liberal and “mainstream” media are trying to portray Florida federal judge Roger Vinson who has overturned the Obamacare as unconstitutional as an “extremist” and a “judicial activist.” They are rightly worried because Judge Vinson has found that the portion he has ruled unconstitutional cannot be “severed” from the rest of the law. This means the entire law is voided by the ruling.

(see the judge’s 78 page ruling here.) (see previous story on UNCOVERAGE.net)

Barack Obama “the candidate” campaigned against mandatory coverage

While campaigning for president, Barack Obama said more than once that a national health insurance law should should not require citizens to purchase health insurance. Yet, that is exactly what became part of the eventual law: Americans must purchase health insurance, or they will be fined under Obamacare.

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

This is what the judge found unconstitutional. In so doing, Judge Vinson remembered “candidate” Obama’s discussions about national health care:

Footnote 30 page 76, ruling by Judge Roger Vinson:

On this point, it should be emphasized that while the individual mandate was clearly “necessary and essential” to the Act as drafted, it is not “necessary and essential” to health care reform in general. It is undisputed that there are various other (Constitutional) ways to accomplish what Congress wanted to do. Indeed, 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.”

See Interview on CNN’s American Morning, Feb. 5, 2008, transcript available at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/05/ltm.02.html:

In fact, he pointed to the similar individual mandate in Massachusetts — which was imposed under the state’s police power, a power the federal government does not have — and opined that the mandate there left some residents “worse off” than they had been before.

See Christopher Lee, Simple Question Defines Complex Health Debate, Washington Post, Feb. 24, 2008, at A10:

(quoting Senator Obama as saying: “In some cases, there are people [in Massachusetts] who are paying fines and still can’t afford[health insurance], so now they’re worse off than they were . . . They don’t have health insurance, and they’re paying a fine . . .”).

Here’s the exact quote from Barack Obama in the CNN show:

“Here in Massachusetts, the state where I’m broadcasting from, they have a mandate, but they’ve had to exempt 20% of the uninsured because those folks still can’t afford it. And you’ve got some people who are not paying fines but also still don’t have health insurance. And that’s what I don’t want to do. I don’t want to put people in a position where they can’t afford it but they’re not getting fined by the government, or as Senator Clinton put it, they’re having it taken out of their paychecks.”

Judge regrets having to rule against national health insurance

If Judge Vinson is such a radical Republican activist judge as the liberal media would have us believe, why is he so SORRY about having to rule so broadly to wipe out the national health insurance law? This does not sound like an “activist,” this sounds like a jurist who is reluctantly following the law and the U.S. constitution:

Page 76:

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.

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 Iam aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there isvirtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, itis hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection andAffordable Care Act.”

The judge notes that Americans could be ordered to eat broccoli if the law is allowed to stand.

Ummmmm, if ObamaCare is so great, why doesn’t everyone want it?

As noted by Dr. Milton Wolf in the Washington Times, and documented here in the list of Obamacare “waivers,” the most hypocritical detail about Obamacare is the fact that the Obama administration is protecting its friends from having to use it.

If it is such a great national health care law, why aren’t the Congress members and their staffs, the big labor unions, and all of Obama’s donor companies wanting to subscribe to it? All legal arguments aside, the liberals can gnash their teeth as much as they want about this judge’s ruling, but they don’t answer that question.

Cross-posted on UNCOVERAGE.net

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!