U.S. Appeals Court Rules Against Obama's Health Care Law

President Barack Obama’s health-care reform law’s provision requiring individuals obtain coverage “exceeds Congress’s commerce power” and is unconstitutional, a U.S. appeals court ruled, affirming a federal judge’s January decision to invalidate that portion of the act in a lawsuit brought by 26 states.
The Atlanta-based appellate court today upheld portions of U.S. District Judge C. Roger Vinson’s ruling that Congress exceeded its power in requiring that almost every American obtain insurance starting in 2014.<snip>

Another nay. I wonder when the Supremes will take this up...

A federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled Friday that a provision in President Obama's health care law requiring citizens to buy health insurance is unconstitutional,

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08 ... z1Upt0Jt7X

As expected...

Now it goes to the 11th Circuit and/or to the Supreme Court...

It will be interesting to watch...

Can't we just skip the next step and go to the Supremes right now? We know whatever the verdict is, it will be appealed.

I wonder if both sides will use this case to open the floodgates on fundraising.

SS109 wrote: Can't we just skip the next step and go to the Supremes right now? We know whatever the verdict is, it will be appealed.

No, we don't know what their verdict will be. Lower courts have ruled both ways on this issue.

Supposedly a Clinton appointed judge made this ruling.
Nice to know some Democrats still support freedom and are against unfunded individual mandates

Another thread of identical topic was merged into this thread.

Kate wrote:

SS109 wrote: Can't we just skip the next step and go to the Supremes right now? We know whatever the verdict is, it will be appealed.

No, we don't know what their verdict will be. Lower courts have ruled both ways on this issue.

But we do know that whatever verdict is reached by the lower courts their decision will ultimately wind up appealed and at the Supreme Court, especially if different districts keep ruling in different manners. Three judge panels of the 6th and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeal have ruled in dissimilar manners. The only step left between them and the Supreme Court is whether or not a full court in either district will decide to examine the case, which they may not decide is necessary and leave the 3 judge panel decisions intact.

SS109 was saying can't we skip over having the full court in each district make up their mind on whether or not they want to look and just go to SCOTUS now since regardless of whether or not each district decides to examine it with a full court, and regardless of how a full court might rule in either district, the loser in the final round of lower courts is going to appeal to the Supreme Court anyway. Do you really think Obama's justice department is going to drop the issue if full courts in both districts rule the individual mandate exceeds the power of Congress to regulate commerce? Me neither, and the other side isn't going to drop the issue if both full courts rule against them either, so does it make a difference at this point what a full court in either district rules?

It will be appealed to the US Supreme Court no matter what. But by having a full court weigh in on it prior to the Supremes, it provides for both sides to give valid arguments on their positions which will get further defined at the Supremes.

The speculation is the Supremes will be deciding this case in the Spring primary season of 2012.