tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25740524.post1763118606939674146..comments2024-03-11T13:16:19.098-04:00Comments on Ad Orientem: Judge Voids Key Part of Health Care LawUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25740524.post-42903480841344834762010-12-14T10:13:38.788-05:002010-12-14T10:13:38.788-05:00I think that Orin Kerr (a thorough-going libertari...I think that <a href="http://volokh.com/2010/12/13/the-significant-error-in-judge-hudsons-opinion/" rel="nofollow">Orin Kerr</a> (a thorough-going libertarian and critic of the Pres Obama's reforms) made a good point when he said that this ruling does not really engage with the case law. It simply assumes the very point in contention in this suit. I would not care to lay odds one way or the other how the Supreme Court will eventually rule on this question (like others, I am nearly certain that the Court will take up one of these facial challenges to the new law), but I feel fairly confident that <i>this</i> ruling will not be particularly influential to the outcome when the Court does eventually consider the ACA's constitutionality.gdelassuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11107851777800250317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25740524.post-54671558926314175492010-12-13T17:15:08.533-05:002010-12-13T17:15:08.533-05:00While you are certainly correct that the ruling wo...While you are certainly correct that the ruling won't stand as the final answer on the health care bill, it is hardly meaningless.<br /><br />First, if no district court accepted the challenge made in the Virginia case, the chances that a federal court of appeals or the Supreme Court would hear (to say nothing about siding with) the ruling would shrink considerably. At the very least thid lsys the groundwork for what will more likely than not become a Supreme Court case.<br /><br />Second, district court rulings are not inconsequential. The plaintiffs now have some real ammunition in their arsenal and the ruling will probably be used as a persuasive authority in other challenges. Also, it sends a signal to other courts that there are grounds for invalidating some (perhaps not all) of the health care bill. Without predicting what effect this will definitely have on other challenges, the anti-health care position, from a legal point of view, just received a shot in the arm of credibility. <br /><br />Third, if public sentiment against the health care bill continues to climb, other courts will be sensitive to that fact when it comes time for them to decide what to do. Again, all of this may still come down to what the Supreme Court chooses to do, but if there are several decisions handed down which strike at the health care bill, the Court may be more inclined to accept some of their logic in its own decision. <br /><br />And, all of this aside, I would recommend people actually read the decision before drawing any wild conclusions. The A.C. brief filed by Randy Barnett and the Cato Institute contains powerful arguments against the health care bill--arguments which demand to be taken seriously. But maybe I'm naive. The Constitutional text hasn't done much to withstand purposeful ignorance since at least the New Deal.G Sanchezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11797757461858023882noreply@blogger.com