The Mandate Decision
The CNN story about U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson’s decision isn’t very informative, but they included a link to the decision [PDF, alas].
Basically the judge said that Congress can’t magically make “inactivity” into “activity” so it can regulate it, and it can’t turn a “penalty” into a “tax” by stuffing it in the Tax Code.
He did not rule the entire law unConstitutional, only the mandate. Virginia was attempting to get the whole thing thrown out because Congress didn’t include a standard severability clause that would allow for individual provisions to be removed without affecting the entire law. The judge essentially ruled that Congress just overlooked it in the rush to get the bill done, because the clause has become standard procedure, besides the issues were going to be settled in higher courts, so there was no point in doing anything dramatic.
The decision shows a very reasoned and workman-like approach to the case. It covers the arguments presented by both sides and rendered a decision based on established precedent and the actual text of the law. If you read it, his point was declaring “inactivity”, not buying insurance from a private company, to be an “activity” under the Commerce Clause was above his pay grade.
No soaring rhetoric, but no “judicial activism”. The Feds couldn’t convince him that not doing something was the equivalent of doing something.
Of course, I’m prejudiced, because I never accepted that particular piece of “legal fiction”.
12 comments
What do you think of the allegations of Hudson’s conflict of interest? They seem mighty plausible to me.
Well, TPM seems to think there’s a problem, but I don’t see it. The case was assigned by district, not by arrangement, and if he had wanted to , he could have declared the entire bill unconstitutional based on the lack of the severability clause, but he didn’t.
This was an extremely narrow decision with neither side getting what they wanted. He didn’t do anything more than the absolute minimum necessary to kick the thing upstairs to the Court of Appeals, which was going to happen, regardless.
He ruled against Virginia on the 10th Amendment claim, and on the issue of severability, but he ruled against the Feds on the tax dodge and the Commerce clause claim. This was a ruling that didn’t make either side jump with joy. This is a very defensive decision from a guy who doesn’t take chances.
If the decision stands, a real public option solves the problem, and really pisses off the insurance companies – what’s not to like?
The decision of a Federal district judge was never going to end the issue. It was headed towards the Supreme Court the day it was passed.
The whole “conflict of interest” sounds silly. He was a founding investor in a company and remains a stockholder. The company is engaged in lobbying. It wasn’t secret, and it has been on his financial disclosure since he became a judge. Both sides would know about it, and no one asked him to recuse himself. I don’t see where the problem is, given the reality of our system of appointing judges.
items of interest, I’ll just post the links
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/amateur-hour-va-judge-makes-elementary-error-in-health-care-ruling.php?ref=fpa
http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2010/12/pr20101215/index.html
http://gawker.com/5713041/judge-who-ruled-health-care-reform-unconstitutional-owns-piece-of-gop-consulting-firm
The same issue is being decided locally by Senior Judge Roger Vinson. Judge Vinson retired from active court work a few years ago, but he is the go-to judge for controversial cases.
The reporters in the court room for oral arguments say that the smart money is on the entire thing being ruled unconstitutional based on the mandate. There was no severability clause and he isn’t going to cut Congress any slack, like Judge Hudson did.
Since there are no camellias involved, Judge Vinson is the president of The Camellia Society, there doesn’t seem room for a conflict of interest charge. He just seemed to indicate that requiring people to buy a commercial product is well beyond the power granted by the Commerce clause. The same reason Judge Hudson ruled against it.
The case in Pensacola will be appealed to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, not the 4th Circuit, so there will be cases decided in different Circuits which is one of the reasons for the Supreme Court to get involved.
I see no reason to waste time on the District court decisions, and everyone knows where this is going to be decided.
Since there are no camellias involved, Judge Vinson is the president of The Camellia Society, there doesn’t seem room for a conflict of interest charge.
b-b-b-but, my camellias are blooming right now and the judge is ruling now! clearly a conflict of interest!
Your camellias are blooming? My Mother’s don’t look like they’ll bloom for another couple of weeks.
This means the Judge will get out a decision quickly, which is one of the reasons for assigning it to him, as a Senior Judge he only deals with one case at a time and doesn’t have anything else on his schedule.
yep, blooming already, although still mostly buds…
this is actually the second time. the first round of blooms [not very profuse] was about mid-late november.
Ah, a difference in definition – I limit blooming to actual, visible flowers, not the buds.
i have actual visible flowers, but yes, at this point it’s still more buds than flowers.
Really? It’s early, especially with the cold spell.
yes, it’s way early but i’ve always thought of camellias as particularly unintelligent flowers. and yes, they first started blooming sometime in the last half of november.
Ah, they got fooled by the mild weather after the first cold snap.