Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Judicial blow to Obama's plan
From The Hindu
A federal judge in Florida on Monday dealt a severe blow to the Obama administration's game-changing healthcare reform of 2010 when he ruled that the section of the reform that made it mandatory for individuals to obtain commercial insurance militated against the United States' constitution.
What made the judgment an even harsher critique of President Barack Obama's policy than an earlier challenge it faced in Virginia was the fact that Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola argued that the mandatory insurance clause was so “inextricably bound” to other provisions within the policy and “its unconstitutionality required the invalidation of the entire law”.
In a statement following the ruling, Judge Vinson said, “The act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker.” However by not suspending the law pending appeals the judge was said to have left some ambiguity surrounding the interpretation of his ruling in the 26 U.S. states that are petitioners in the case.
The latest ruling on the Affordable Care Act brings the score on judicial review of the policy to a tie. In December Judge Henry Hudson of Richmond, Virginia ruled that the mandatory insurance purchase law “exceeded the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause”. Earlier two judges, in Detroit, Michigan and Lynchburg, Virginia, had ruled in favour of the law.
The multiple challenges to the healthcare policy have also heightened the pitch of the debate on judicial activism.
Liberals in particular have charged conservatives with reneging on their constant battle cry of “judicial restraint,” arguing that such restraint ought to imply “deferring to... Congress on matters of policy preference,” — including on questions of whether it is “better to run a national health insurance system with a system of regulated private insurance... rather than via a single-payer, government-run plan.”
Yet, some observers argued, if these decisions carried the day then “they would effectively take that discretion away from the Congress”.
A federal judge in Florida on Monday dealt a severe blow to the Obama administration's game-changing healthcare reform of 2010 when he ruled that the section of the reform that made it mandatory for individuals to obtain commercial insurance militated against the United States' constitution.
What made the judgment an even harsher critique of President Barack Obama's policy than an earlier challenge it faced in Virginia was the fact that Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola argued that the mandatory insurance clause was so “inextricably bound” to other provisions within the policy and “its unconstitutionality required the invalidation of the entire law”.
In a statement following the ruling, Judge Vinson said, “The act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker.” However by not suspending the law pending appeals the judge was said to have left some ambiguity surrounding the interpretation of his ruling in the 26 U.S. states that are petitioners in the case.
The latest ruling on the Affordable Care Act brings the score on judicial review of the policy to a tie. In December Judge Henry Hudson of Richmond, Virginia ruled that the mandatory insurance purchase law “exceeded the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause”. Earlier two judges, in Detroit, Michigan and Lynchburg, Virginia, had ruled in favour of the law.
The multiple challenges to the healthcare policy have also heightened the pitch of the debate on judicial activism.
Liberals in particular have charged conservatives with reneging on their constant battle cry of “judicial restraint,” arguing that such restraint ought to imply “deferring to... Congress on matters of policy preference,” — including on questions of whether it is “better to run a national health insurance system with a system of regulated private insurance... rather than via a single-payer, government-run plan.”
Yet, some observers argued, if these decisions carried the day then “they would effectively take that discretion away from the Congress”.
Labels: health insurance, healthcare overhaul, U.S. constitution
# posted by Narayan Lakshman @ 7:54 AM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
