Friday, October 15, 2010

Game On

A Federal Judge has rules that the states' healthcare suits can go forward. I don't think anything will come of it, but I really didn't think the state suits would make it this far. If the challenges do go through successfully, I wonder what the outcome would be. Does Congress scrap the plan and start over or do they try to patch over the pieces that would be deemed unconstitutional?

7 comments:

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

I'm sorry, was anyone under the impression that the "game" was ever off? This case will get to SCOTUS before it is decided, but there are still years of litigation left in the tank.

Who knows what Congress will look like when they take this issue up again?

DADvocate said...

I heard on the radio the most legislation has a clause which says that if any part of it is declared unconstitutional, the rest is still in effect and that the Obama healthcare law doesn't have this clause. Apparently the reason being that it needs all parts to work. If this is true, it seems they would need to scrap the plan and start over.

patsbrother said...

I cannot believe they would intentionally leave out a severability clause for something they considered so symbolic.

I think more than likely whoever said it wasn't there just wasn't able to find it in that 2,000 page behemoth.

However, even if it really is not there, I cannot believe the omission was the result of sober, thoughtful choice (deliberation, what?) but rather was a complete oversight by people who were throwing things together willy-nilly.

I think whoever you heard on the radio is just hoping for a silver bullet that doesn't exist.

DADvocate said...

It's in the New York Times.

The lawyer noted that in writing the legislation, Congress failed to include “severability” language to specify that the rest of the law would survive.

The Justice Department concedes that some of the most essential insurance changes, including requiring insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions, will have to be scrapped if the coverage requirement loses in the courts.


Wouldn't surprise me if it was an oversight. The Democratic Congress hasn't shown any great competence.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

While I wouldn't put it past being an oversight (the simplest answer usually being the right answer), it could have to do with HCR having so many moving parts. If one section is determined unconstitutional, other parts of the bill might not work.

Of course, this is why legislation is never truly "over." It is another reason I found the hysteria surrounding the crafting of this bill to be so distasteful.

DADvocate said...

...it could have to do with HCR having so many moving parts. If one section is determined unconstitutional, other parts of the bill might not work.

This is the explanation I heard on the radio.

It is another reason I found the hysteria surrounding the crafting of this bill to be so distasteful.

Better we be led down the primrose path to serfdom without a wimper. Huh?

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

We've been on the primrose path for some time, and any Federal legislation only plays a small part in it - sometimes we inch towards it, sometimes we inch back.

But should we choose to change that path, we do so through amending existing legislation through other legislation or judicial remedy. That's how the system was set up.

The cries of "TEH COMMUNINIZ KENYA ANTI-COLONIALISM DEATH PANELZ" are hyperbolic and nonsense. As we're seeing with this very court case, we have an entire branch of government dedicated to examining new legislation, and that's only if the voters are unable to change the legislators themselves through free and fair elections.