Tea Party Judge Roger Vinson "Borrows Heavily" From Family Research Council To Invalidate Health Law

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.truth-out.org/tea-party-judge-roger-vinson-borrows-heavily-from-family-research-council-to-invalidate-health-law67

The most surprising part of Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling was his argument that the individual mandate was not severable from the health care law as a whole and must therefor bring down the entire Affordable Care Act. “In sum, notwithstanding the fact that many of the provisions in the Act can stand independently without the individual mandate (as a technical and practical matter), it is reasonably ‘evident,’ as I have discussed above, that the individual mandate was an essential and indispensable part of the health reform efforts, and that Congress did not believe other parts of the Act could (or it would want them to) survive independently,” Vinson writes.

But a closer read of his analysis reveals something peculiar. In fact, as Vinson himself admits in Footnote 27 (on pg. 65), he arrived at this conclusion by “borrow heavily from one of the amicus briefs filed in the case for it quite cogently and effectively sets forth the applicable standard and governing analysis of severability (doc. 123).” That brief was filed by the Family Research Council, which has been branded as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

“The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as ‘the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,’ but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians,” SPLC says. Indeed, so-called FRC “experts” (who most recently lobbied to preserve Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) have argued that “gaining access to children” “has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement” and claimed that “ne of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets of a new sexual order.” FRC President Tony Perkins has even described pedophilia as a “homosexual problem.”

Here is how Vinson lifts FRC’s argument:

More at the link --

[badgolfer]

1. health vs auto

So, why is it unconstitutional to mandate health insurance but okay for States to mandate that you carry auto insurance? Georgia's Governor Deal was all excited about this Judge's ruling but this State mandates you have auto insurance. Why the difference?

[golddigger]

2. Because you don't have to buy a car.

[kudzu22]

3. And States have different powers than the Feds

Auto insurance is a state mandate and it's only required if you drive on public roads. Health insurance is a federal mandate and is required if you're alive. It's questionable whether the feds can make such a mandate, and in any case, you have a choice whether to drive or not. You don't have the choice not to live (really).