Federal Judge Refuses To Dismiss Challenge To ObamaCare


Awesome news!

A judge on Monday refused to dismiss the state of Virginia’s challenge to President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law, a setback that will force his administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the overhaul effort.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson refused to dismiss the state’s lawsuit which argues the law’s requirement that its residents have health insurance was unconstitutional, allowing the challenge to go forward.


The ruling represents a setback that will force the Obama administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the law. The suit, filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (pictured), alleges that the law’s requirement that its residents have health insurance violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Virginia’s lawsuit is one of several trying to undo the health-care law. Another large one was filed in a Florida federal court by a handful of state attorneys general.

In his opinion, Judge Hudson ruled:

The guiding precedent [on the Commerce Clause] is informative but inconclusive. Never before has the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far. At this juncture, the court is not persuaded that the Secretary has demonstrated a failure to state a cause of action with respect to the Commerce Clause element.

In other words, off to discovery we head.

So this will now move to trial and Obama & pals will have to defend this clusterf#%*, afterwards its sure to hit the Supreme Court. Virginia isn’t the only state with a challenge to this idiocy so look for more rulings such as this one.

Other good news: (h/t Michelle Malkin)

Coloradans may have the opportunity this fall to weigh in on the recent health care legislation passed by Congress. Roughly 130,000 signatures in support of the Right to Health Care Choice amendment to Colorado’s Constitution were turned into the Secretary of State’s office on Friday afternoon.

To qualify for the November ballot, 76,047 of those signatures need to be matched with registered Colorado voters.

The amendment would prevent Coloradans from being required to buy health insurance and to continue to allow medical personnel to take payments in cash for services.

“We want Colorado to be a sanctuary state for quality health care,” Jon Caldara, the initiative’s chief proponent, said. “This is not just to address the mandate in Obama-care, this is to make sure Colorado never becomes like Massachusetts where government puts a gun to your head and says you will buy a private product whether you want it or not.

How long before the left begins attacking Judge Hudson?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I think that Obama and his admin were hoping to get this dismissed so that it wouldn’t be front and center during the November elections. If they had succeeded, the issue could have been painted as a “fringe” issue by the “extremists” on the right. Now, it will be much harder for democrats to use it against their opponents and portray themselves, wrongly, as being in the mainstream.

I give Judge Hudson props for allowing it to go forward, but, in answer to your question, they(the liberals/progressives) need to attack the man as soon as they can in order to group him as an extremist judge. That is why I give props to him, since he had to know that the left would go into attack mode on his character, life, and anything that could be possibly used against him in the court of public opinion. I hope that he has a strong constitution. He’s gonna need it.

Waiting for Obama to claim Judge Hudson “acted stupidly”.

It is good news indeed that a US District Judge may have read the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution that does in fact limit the authority of the Federal Government in Meddling in issues that fall within the venue of Each Individual State to Legislate or Regulate.

The Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clauses have been much abused by Congress and Federal Agencies over the years and is in need of some serious pruning like a thorn bush that has gotten out of hand. The General Welfare Clause is another source of tyranny, waste fraud, abuse and over reach by the Federal Meddlers. Meddler is as polite as I can describe the most wasteful Congress and intrusive Federal Government in my almost 60 years of walking the planet.

For a Constitutional Scholar, the Temporary resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue seems to be in way over his head in regards to the Authority of the States and limitations of Power of the Federal Government. This challenge to the constant meddling could not come at a more opportune moment. The Obama Care farce is clearly not whithin the scope of the Federal Government’s employment as it allows MEDICARE and Social Security to circle the bowl and
become more insolvent. Americans are vested in MEDICARE and SS through “investment” and
do not need to be taken for the same “ride” that the Chrysler/Daimler Benz Stockholders suffered at the Hands of Team Obama and his merry band of Marxists. Keeping Oaths or Promises to America is what was expected. Breaking Constitutional Oaths and Promises by the Current Regime is not Hope or Change. It is Malfeasance of Office and Dereliction of Duty. A betrayal of the Public Trust on a grand scale.

Let’s pray that the Constitution, ALL of IT, and the Individual States get some respect from the District Court Judge that will hear the case.

How long before the left begins attacking Judge Hudson?

5… 4… 3… 2… 1… :mrgreen:

Any time now…

@Old Trooper 2

Yeah, my favorite is the General Welfare clause… they read it like it gives them the ability to spend tax money on anything… when it was actauly a LIMITING factor, saying that Tax dollars must be spent for the GENERAL welfare… ie that of all citizens, and not favoring a company or group…

But then this is the same Government who just put a hit out on an American Citizen without due process of law… so I’m not holding my breath that they will reign in their own power…

I would look at this ruling as real progress!! Looks like 0-bama and his Demonrats are going to have to account for this disaster.

Seriously good news, IMHO. Indicates that VA put together a very complete argument, since judges generally lean toward plaintiffs and the overall potential merit of their arguments at this stage. And in the case of AZ v United States (immigration), that “leaning” went a step further. But that ball game is far from over.

My favorite phrase in this 32 page ruling?

No specifically articulated constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance or the assessment of a penalty for failing to do so.

Music to my ears…

Also a bit of chutzpah and arrogance by Obama’s HHS Secretary on pg 30.

Casting aside many aspects of the Commonwealth’s argument, the Secretary [added, referring to Sebelius] contends that in the final analysis, the Minimal Essential Coverage Provision falls within Congress’s general welfare authority. (emphasis mine) She also underscores that decisions of how best to provide for the general welfare are for the representative branches, not for the courts. Helvering v Davis 301 U.S. 619, 640, 57 S Ct. 904, 908 (1937). “Inquire into the hidden motives which may move Congress to exercise a power constitutionally conferred upon it is beyond the competency of courts.” Sonzinsky 300 U.S. at 513-514, 57 S. Ct. at 556.

While they may portend that courts examining hidden motives may be beyond judicial “competency”, their method of implementing those motives are not only within the court’s authority, but are constitutionally required as part of our separation of powers.

Can’t wait to see what’s doing on other 20 states, consolidating their challenges to O’healthcare as well yum….


One has to question how anyone can think that the ‘general welfare’ clause in any way supports decisions that place bindings of servitude on some for the good of all. Is it not true that by using a law to take from some and give to others you are, by definition, restricting the ‘general welfare’ of those you take from?

Good observation, johngalt. And you certainly won’t get an argument from me that redistribution has individual impacts. Some will lose, and others may find their lot in life improved.

However I would guess that Sebelius/HHS would argue “general welfare”, by their definition, does not address the impact on specific individuals, but the State collectively. Most specifically, they would be citing economic impact, and the needed revenue to accommodate the welfare entitlements already in place with Medicare/Medical and SSS.

General Welfare could thus mean restricting health care for anyone over the age of 65 as it would lower the burden of social security and medicare payments if only the geriatric could be forced to become soylent green at a quicker pace than is naturally occurring.

How long before such an argument is proffered in some court somewhere by a government attorney?

At the very minimum, we are about to get a much needed clarification of federal powers … This do anything to anyone sure is at odds with freedom and liberty.

These types of actions are just frivolous law suits which going the way of being opposed to what Americans think, and just add to the expenses of running government. 50% of Americans, in the latest Kaiser Poll, favor the President’s health care–compared the just over 40% four months ago–and 35% opposed it. [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/29/888717/-Kaiser-poll:-Health-care-reform-support-reaches-new-high]

21 states pushing back, pushing the envelope of “commerce clause” beyond any limits, judge trashes motion by DOJ… ooops, ‘scuse me, got immigration on the brain. Judge trashes HHS/Sebelius motion.

Yeah, frivolous stuff there, tadcf…..


Nice link. Not a surprise they would use that poll. The problem is, most other polls on this show a clear majority in favor of repealing Obamacare across the entire US.

44% approve/ 54% Disapprove CNN poll 7/16-21/10

46% approve/ 51% disapprove Bloomberg poll 7/9-12/10

35% approve/ 47% disapprove Pewresearch poll 7/8-11/10

38% oppose repeal of Obamacare/ 59% favor repeal Rasmussen 8/2/2010

Just a sampling, with dates of polling or poll release.

Now, comment on the ruling other than stating the lawsuit is frivolous. It’s kind of hard to state something is frivolous when they have the people and the Constitution behind them, wouldn’t you agree? Probably not.

Antony (in Shakespeare’s Julius Ceasar), Obama, and Holder all have this phrase in common: “O’ judgemnt! thou art fled to brutish beasts”. Too funny, no translation required.


It’s frivolous because it’s being done for Republican political reasons, and ultimately won’t go anywhere.

You really should document you data by providing a link–to facilitate verification. Poll data on this issue is changing fast. The dates on some of your polling information isn’t clear.

Bare percentages do not tell the whole tale anyway. For example, according to CBS Poll, “While the new poll shows a recent drop in support, the numbers have still improved overall since March, when 53 percent of Americans disapproved of the new laws and 32 percent said they approved of them.”

Then, according the PEW Poll, there’s the 22% who fell into ‘let the law stand, don’t know, or refused to answer’ category, with only 37% answering the question as ‘repeal immediately’.

Even the FOX report that indicates 55% of the respondents were ‘dissatisfied’ with health care reform; 42% wanted to change it–a percentage of which were probably included in ‘dissatisfied’ category; and 25% didn’t feel the bill went far enough–who were possible included in the first two categories; and only 37% wanted to repeal it.

The Rasmussen poll does not represent a significant difference in their polling over the past few months (sometimes higher, sometimes lower). I would suggest that those who oppose it are composed of people who have health insurance.

Then there are the polls, like the one I quoted, the suggests the opposite. Polls are best viewed as indicting trend lines. I still believe in the old liberal saying, “Conservative ideas on social policy always ultimately wind up in the trash can of history”.


I suggest you tell the people of MO that the lawsuit is frivolous and see what their response would be.

As for providing links, I provided you with the polling company itself, and the dates are as clear as can be. CNN, Bloomberg, and Pew were for the weeks listed, while the Rasmussen was the date of release of the poll.

As for your intimation that support for Obamacare is growing, you, of course, are allowed to believe what you wish, just as we conservatives are. The final telling will be in Nov. and in 2012.

And finally, as for your ‘old liberal saying’, show me a country that has destroyed itself and you will find liberal policies were it’s destruction.

44% approve/ 54% Disapprove CNN poll 7/16-21/10

What does this date mean? The poll dates between July 16 to ? (21st month) 10 (day) of what year? Or July 16 of 2110? Or what?

46% approve/ 51% disapprove Bloomberg poll 7/9-12/10

Does this mean the polling results reflect the period between 7/9 to 12/10 of what year– 2009, or before. This is an odd way of expressing poll results–is it an average?

35% approve/ 47% disapprove Pewresearch poll 7/8-11/10

What year is the for–can’t be for 2010, since we haven’t gotten to November yet (11/10)

Do you see why it would be important to list links?

I think the Missouri result was the outcome a vote, not a law suit–so frivolity is not relevant.


Your point is taken on the dates. Links aren’t necessary as I have provided the names of the polling centers. The dates, for example CNN, mean between July 16th to July 21rst of 2010. Bloomberg and Pew are listed similarly. I figured the dates out in half a minute. Your supposedly smart. You should have been able to do the same.

As for ‘frivolity’:

/ˈfrɪvələs/ Show Spelled[friv-uh-luhs] Show IPA
1. characterized by lack of seriousness or sense: frivolous conduct.
2. self-indulgently carefree; unconcerned about or lacking any serious purpose.
3. (of a person) given to trifling or undue levity: a frivolous, empty-headed person.
4. of little or no weight, worth, or importance; not worthy of serious notice: a frivolous suggestion.

The lawsuit from VA is hardly frivolous. It is a serious attempt at disputing the individual mandate by a state that wishes the federal government to refrain from overstepping it’s bounds. Don’t be so literal with my suggestion about MO. Of course it was a vote. But again, I suggest you ask the state of MO about the frivolousness of VA’s lawsuit. I don’t even have to guess, since the people have spoken, that they believe the federal government has overstepped it’s bounds and the people of MO have soundly rejected that overstepping.


44% approve/ 54% Disapprove CNN poll 7/16-21/10
Does this poll represent the dates between July 16 to ? (month 21) 10 (day) of what year? Or, did you make a mistake and really mean July 7, 2110? Or what?

46% approve/ 51% disapprove Bloomberg poll 7/9-12/10
Does this poll represent July 9 to December 10 of what year? Surely not 2010, because we haven’t reached December yet. And 2009 would seem to be outdated.

35% approve/ 47% disapprove Pewresearch poll 7/8-11/10
Same criticism for the previous example.

See why it’s important to document your facts with a link?

Also I think the Missouri decision was based on referendum, not law suit—hence the frivolity of the case is irrelevant.

John Galt:

You figured the dates out because you wrote them. Why are you so opposed to giving links. Is it because it makes it easier to check the veracity.

Frivolity is a matter of personal judgement. If one feels the main intent is to grandstand and make political points, then, the that person may think a suit to be frivolous–others may think differently.


I did not write those dates. That is how they are presented on the site I referenced. Since you seem to be internet search deficient, here are a couple sites that present polling data on Obamacare:



As for frivolity, it cannot be a matter of judgement if it does not fit the definition I presented. You may believe it is grandstanding, but to a majority of people, particularly as shown in MO, it is serious enough to administer a lawsuit or a vote on it. It cannot be grandstanding if the people have made their voice heard on their opposition to it. Your desire to label it as thus notwithstanding, the people, via polling and direct contact using votes or congressional contact with their representatives, state and federal, are in opposition to it. Discount the voices being raised in opposition if you will, but it doesn’t change the fact that the majority of people in America oppose the individual mandate, if not Obamacare itself.

John Galt:

Now wasn’t that simple, just cite a link or two to verify your position. No reason to degrade my internet skills. Why were you so hesitant to disclose them in the first place. May be it’s because the data you chose affirmed your position. Or, maybe it’s because the composite on http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php shows the long-term of the decline in opposition to the health care reform plan–which does not support your position.

Oh well, I found some of the data you mentioned anyway, but you never bothered to dispute my analysis. But that’s no longer since the composite analysis shows that opposition to your position is in decline, regardless of what any individual poll results show.

John Galt:

Oh, by the way, according to the long-term composite according to pollster.com (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php) the gap between those that ‘oppose’ and those that ‘support’ the health care plan is only about 5%.