Monday, December 13, 2010

Missouri GOP thrilled with judge's health care ruling

The Missouri Republican Party hailed a judge's decision to strike down part of the federal health care plan today. The GOP also took some shots at Sen. Claire McCaskill and Gov. Jay Nixon. From the news release:

In a major victory for opponents of President Obama’s health care takeover, a federal judge today ruled that the individual health care mandate, which is central to the bill itself, is unconstitutional. Today’s ruling strikes yet another blow to Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill and Gov. Jay Nixon—both of whom were complicit in the passage of the bill earlier this year.

“Today’s ruling that crucial parts of the Obama-Pelosi health care takeover are unconstitutional demonstrates that Republicans have been right all along,” Said Lloyd Smith, Executive Director of the Missouri Republican Party. “Claire McCaskill thumbed her nose at the clear will of Missourians and the American people as one of the most ardent supporters of Barack Obama’s health care plan. And Jay Nixon remained silent as Missourians took to the streets to protest the government’s infringement on their liberties. But finally, the courts are following the people and beginning to repeal portions of the bill that clearly violate our constitutional rights.”

Claire McCaskill was a leading proponent of the Obama-Pelosi plan—traveling the state and attempting to sell the bill to Missourians. Even now, McCaskill continues to advocate for the failed Obama agenda, insisting that massive Democrat losses in 2010 were the result of a failure to communicate rather than the repudiation of the Democrat agenda.

By contrast, Nixon took the opposite position—ducking every opportunity he had to comment on the bill or, later, Proposition C, which gave Missourians a say on some of the worst parts of the proposal. But Nixon’s silence spoke volumes and made it clear that he supported Obamacare.

While McCaskill and Nixon aided and abetted Obama and Pelosi, Missouri Republicans took action, leading the charge against the federal health care bill. Lt. Governor Peter Kinder announced his intention to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law, and the Missouri General Assembly overwhelmingly approved resolutions against the bill and allowing a vote of the people. Missourians overwhelmingly took advantage of that opportunity, with more than 71% sending Washington a message at the ballot box in August.


Craig Davis said...

I heard on TV yesterday that this judge was being lobbied and standed to gain by his eventual decision because of a conflict of interest in his personal assets. It should come out if this is true.

Anonymous said...

Given that this decision will have to stand the scrutiny of the court district's Appeals court and almost certainly the Supremes, that wouldn't matter, since as far as I know there are no findings of fact in this case, just issues with law (absent gross abuse the higher courts defer to the "court of first instance" in findings of fact).

From the legal analysis I've read this decision is solid, it does not contradict any of the previous Commerce Clause cases, most especially the foundational and abhorrent Wickard v. Filburn.

Or to quote Don Surber, it's equivalent to the the question "Can the government tell you to get a haircut, hippie?".

Hey, you should be happy with this decision: although he didn't have to, the judge severed the individual mandate from the rest of the bill despite it lacking a severability clause (due to its tortured path through the Congress after Scott Brown's election, they had to work with the initial Senate version before it had the usual boilerplate clauses like that one added).