Appeals Court Tosses Virginia ObamaCare Lawsuits

Conservative Christian university will appeal the ruling

(AP) - A federal judge yesterday dismissed Liberty University's lawsuit challenging the Obama administration's new federal health care law, declaring that a provision requiring most individuals to obtain insurance is constitutional. The ruling is the second court decision upholding the law, following one in Michigan in October . University law school dean Mathew Staver said in a telephone interview that he will promptly appeal the ruling to the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. More»

Founding Fathers may have liked ObamaCare: Einer Elhauge

(NEWSER) - Health insurance mandates—unconstitutional? That's what the opponents of ObamaCare are arguing , "but there’s a major problem with this line of argument: It just isn’t true," writes Einer Elhuage in The New Republic . In fact, the founding fathers passed more than one mandate in Congress in the 1790s. To wit:

• The first Congress (including 20 framers) passed a law mandating that ship owners buy medical insurance for seamen. President George Washington signed it into law. "That's right, the father of our country," writes Elhauge.

Justices flummoxed about what happens if mandate falls: Lyle Denniston

(NEWSER) - Court watcher Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog thinks today's arguments at the Supreme Court bode well for President Obama's health care law. His reasoning? Most justices seemed worried that if they struck down the central part of the law—the individual mandate requiring everyone to buy insurance—it would be too "onerous" for them or Congress to figure which portions of the 2,700-page legislation should stand. More»

Most seem inclined to let parts of it stand

(NEWSER) - If the individual mandate is deemed unconstitutional , should the rest of President Obama's health care reform die with it? Supreme Court justices wrestled with that question today in the third and final day of arguments, with the challengers' lead attorney stating his case simply: “If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the rest of the act cannot stand," said Paul D. Clement. That got a mixed reaction, reports the Washington Post and New York Times :

• Antonin Scalia: He sounded sympathetic. “My approach would be to say that if you take the heart out of this statute, the statute’s gone.”
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg: She disagreed. “There are so many things in this act that are unquestionably OK,” she said. If the choice is between "a wrecking operation and a salvage job, a more conservative approach would be a salvage job."

All this hot air is meaningless until the court actually rules: Steve Kornacki

(NEWSER) - Based on the breathless commentary after the Supreme Court's oral arguments today, it might have seemed as if the court had already decided to rule against health care reform. Sorry to spoil the fun, but it's way too early for either side to think this is a done deal, writes Steve Kornacki at Salon . "All of this alarmism may well amount to nothing." Yes, Anthony Kennedy sounded skeptical about the individual mandate, for example, but Kornacki points to a detailed recap of arguments by Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog suggesting that Kennedy's opposition isn't as solid as thought. More»