iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Axelrod: Judge's Invalidation Of Health Care Law Is 'Very Dubious'


First Posted: 01/31/11 06:38 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:30 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration pushed back forcefully on Monday afternoon against a Florida judge's ruling that its signature health care law is invalid, calling the judgment a legally "dubious" reading of the law.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, outgoing senior adviser David Axelrod accused Judge Roger Vinson of judicial overreach for concluding that the health care law's individual mandate was both unconstitutional and not severable from the rest of the legislation -- meaning the entire law had to be tossed.

"I'm not a lawyer," said Axelrod, from a makeshift office in the West Wing. "But I will tell you that I think that many lawyers are very dubious about that. The role of the courts is not to look for expansive opportunities to invalidate an act of Congress -- it is to rule narrowly as possible and leave intact the intent of the legislation. So I'm sure that will be a matter of intense discussion and debate as this case moves forward in the courts."

"Two courts have ruled in favor of the law, two now have ruled against," he added. "We feel very strongly that the law is constitutional, and we are going to continue to implement it and make the case in the courts, and we are very confident that at the end of the day it will be upheld."

The debate over severability is a bit muddled due to the fact that courts have, in the past, applied the clause to laws even if it wasn't included in the final draft. Conservative legal observers have suggested that the individual mandate can be severed from the law itself, even if authors failed to include the language when they were crafting reform. Vinson determined otherwise.

Easier to diagnose is how the administration will push back against unfavorable rulings. Axelrod's statement adopts, at its heart, a decidedly conservative critique of the judicial branch. But the framing does suit the administration's agenda. The health care reform act is an act of Congress. The argument can be made, as Stephanie Cutter, a deputy senior advisor to the president and top communications hand on health care matters, did in a blog post, that to overturn it would be a form of "judicial activism."

And yet, it's hard not to imagine that the White House is breathing a bit more heavily following Monday's ruling. For starters, an earlier ruling against the health care law, handed down by a Virginia federal judge, held that the individual mandate, while unconstitutional, could be considered severable from the rest of the legislation. The Affordable Care Act, in short, could go forward even if the provision requiring people buy insurance couldn't.

Vinson's decision is much further-reaching. And while the individual mandate won't be implemented until 2014, the mere fact that the decision invalidates the rest of the law has forced the administration's lawyers to scramble for the proper response.

On Monday afternoon, a senior administration official in a conference call organized by the White House said that implementation of the law would continue as planned. The New York Times reported, meanwhile, that "Vinson declined to enjoin the law and ruled that it could remain in place pending appeals."

But the Justice Department is weighing the need to file a formal stay of the decision, in part because of the ruling that the mandate was inseverable.

"As we look at next steps we are considering all options, which include [a stay]," said an administration official. "And it has to do with the fact that the severability finding of the ruling ... To the extent that there are already reforms taking place, [the Judge] is finding them unconstitutional. To the extent there could be confusion about that with states, with insurers, with small businesses and the like," there is a need for clarity. "You could have governors come out tomorrow and say my state will no longer enforce this law because this judge said the whole thing is unconstitutional."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration pushed back forcefully on Monday afternoon against a Florida judge's ruling that its signature health care law is invalid, calling the judgment a legally "dubiou...
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration pushed back forcefully on Monday afternoon against a Florida judge's ruling that its signature health care law is invalid, calling the judgment a legally "dubiou...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,956
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (25 total)
photo
TexasTreader
Fluffy, the yard dog
01:08 PM on 02/06/2011
Whether it's completely demolished or just the individual mandate is, the result is the same. You can't spread the cost of health care across all citizens if not all citizens are participating. The Tea Party has won and Obama Care is a gone-pecawn.
06:31 PM on 02/03/2011
Repeal health care for what end?

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-25/health/health.care.law.basics_1_health-insurance-high-risk-pool-health-care-reform?_s=PM:HEALTH

So that 26 year olds lose their coverage by being thrown off their parent's plans?

http://moaablogs.org/financial/2010/03/health-care-reform-tricare-and-the-26-year-old-dependent/

One vote away from hospice patients losing their rights to aggressive care?

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/May/10/Hospice.aspx

http://articles.philly.com/2010-05-10/news/24959591_1_hospice-care-hospice-philosophy-hospice-staff

http://articles.philly.com/2010-05-10/news/24959591_1_hospice-care-hospice-philosophy-hospice-staff/3

They will once again be able to deny care to children with pre existing conditions­:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0324/Health-care-reform-bill-101-rules-for-preexisting-conditions

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2010/03­/29/health­/policy/29­health.htm­l

The companies will once again be able to cancel the policies of patients once they are diagnosed with HIV or cancer.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/17/us-insurers-idUSTRE62G2DO20100317

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/demons-and-demonization/

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/reuters-and-milwaukee-journal-sentinel-receive-2010-barlett--steele-awards-104329693.html

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/reuters_is_excellent_in_diggin.php
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
billw8017
History looks like this
02:05 PM on 02/03/2011
Universal health care has often been the "conservative" policy. It takes from the people so as to diminish the waste due to their instinct for riotous living and turns the money to a practical purpose, that is, healthier more vigorous workers. So, we do not see soldiers on the field of battle negotiating with their insurance agent or filling out applications for credit. Neither is there any BS about checking out the doctors and hospitals for the most competitive pricing.

Our system has its vested interests and these know the power of campaign funding. Particularly among politicians who really don't give a d@mn anyway, the effect is absolute. Yet, the system of employer funded health insurance is collapsing under the weight of medical inflation and sinking wages / benefits. It is time to look at the problem and do what it takes to handle it.

Obamacare is heavily compromised to placate the major vested interest aside from the people/patients themselves. The continuing resistance shows how necessary these compromises were since they are barely sufficient to save it.

Perhaps, it cannot be saved. However, the taste of this something that is better, may restore it. Australia repealed its first attempt at universal health care -- then, restored it a couple years later. What will Americans do when 40 million people are suddenly abandoned out of Obamacare into the previous neglect?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ronkw
Molon labe
06:37 PM on 02/02/2011
Obama and Co. claim to hear the citizens in Egypt, but then have a deaf ear to the majority of Americans as well as a majority of the States that do not want this imposed and forced upon us.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carolyn LeBeauf
04:53 PM on 02/02/2011
The republicans will find enough republican judges to try and kill health care reform, but not one of them will give up their health care. It's good enough for them but no one else is allowed to have it. I think we might see what's happening in Egypt , happens right here in the streets of america if these republicans continue to try and destroy this country and it's people.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Fi
A Gluten-Free life!
07:27 AM on 02/02/2011
MEDICARE FOR ALL!
photo
Watermelonman
Seeker of truth and justice.
07:41 PM on 02/01/2011
Healthcare without a mandate has never worked and will never work. The insurance companies demanded that the government inculde that mandate to both create new paying customers and reducing the risks of the overall pool of insureds. The flip side of the mandate is a law banning healthcare providers from treating patients who have no healthcare insurance. That won't work either. If the SCOTUS rules that the law is unconstitutional, so be it. There is no way to provide broader access to healthcare insurance other than requiring everyone to have it.

What I don't get is that Mass [under Mitt Romney] made healthcare insurance mandatory there. Why has that law not been challenged as unconstitutional? Can somebody in Mass explain that to me?
03:32 PM on 02/01/2011
I'm a little confused if a Federal Judge or Supreme Court Justice are political activists and write opinions based on political positions they are guilty of perjury and shouldn't be subject to criminal prosecution but this does not seem to stop them from doing it.

When they took the oath they swore that they would base their decisions on the Constitution and established legal precedent. There is no room for political opinions if they make a decision based on politics it calls into question the validity of our entire legal system.

That impartiality is the only reason they are appointed for life if they can't handle this they should step down that's if they were honorable people and held their oath sacred but apparently they feel that their oath is just so many words or something they can dodge. They are not appointed God but yet they alone decided who we a free people will be governed by deciding who's vote will be counted and even who is and who is not a person allowing corporations and foreign entities to buy our government. Is this why we have Supreme Court Justices holding closed door sessions with political operatives!

In light of this what chance do you think HCR has based on the make up of the SCOTUS.. the fix is in. Tell me it ain't so Joe.
photo
DismayedRepub
300Mm/s Not just common sense, it’s the law
01:05 PM on 02/01/2011
Never before has the government required the citizen to participate in commerce. There is no precedent of this in case law. This is going to be an uphill battle for the administration.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rmonroe
01:37 PM on 02/01/2011
Really, so the government has never required you purchase anything? What a ridiculous statement. Of course they have. I won't make a list, because it is not worth it.
photo
DismayedRepub
300Mm/s Not just common sense, it’s the law
01:56 PM on 02/01/2011
I'll make a list, let's start with car insurance. You have a choice, you can opt out of owning or driving a car. What should go on the list next?
12:52 PM on 02/01/2011
If this law is so wonderful, why is obama handing out exemptions like tic tacs? Why are so many going to unions?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheBus18
12:26 PM on 02/01/2011
Strange. I believe it was Rush Limbaugh who once wrote that whenever Liberals fail at the ballot box, they run for the Courts.

Ohhhh, the irony.
11:31 AM on 02/01/2011
Since we have laws that make it mandatory to have auto insurance, car registration, driver's licenses, physician's lawyer's, pilot's, etc., practice is regulated by government, it seems to me the state can mandate health insurance coverage. But who knows what the Supremes might decide. Maybe the Gates Foundation would establish a non-profit national health insurance provider available to everybody. This would avoid the stigma of big government bureaucracy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Deborah Karr
12:40 PM on 02/01/2011
They only make these insurances mandatory if you chose to drive, fly, practice law or medicine. Key word is if you chose!!!! The HC bill makes it mandatory just for being born.
01:59 PM on 02/01/2011
As you say people have a choice of driving, flying etc. The auto insurance mandate insures your ability to pay liabilities should you get into an accident. People don't have an option to not get sick. If they do who do you think pays the bill? Those of us with insurance do. We pay through higher premiums because hospitals charge more for their services to make up for the people who can't pay and declare bankruptcy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipTaylor
Legalized Bribery is an Oxymoron - must END
10:44 AM on 02/01/2011
DEGENERATION OF HOPE FOR HONEST HEALTH CARE

Within two weeks of entering the White House Axelrod and the rest changed from idealistic liberals to party hack and boot lickers:

1. Special-Privileged Decision-Making yielded to Corruption
2. They became driven by Special-Interests as did the rest of the White House.
3. They us no testing and evaluation of the validity of there ideas.  
4. We were all immediately shocked, shaken, and demoralized by their actions - Single-payer gone.
5. Americans of thought and action ask what might we do to turn this nation away from the direction of self-destruction, poverty and servitude. 
6. Across America leadership is using self-deception, deception, cover-up, incompetence, selfishness and greed and disregarding everything of value.
7. Many feel chagrined, crestfallen, and brokenhearted as we see the promise of hope and positive change turn to helplessness.
8. In Health Care all the White House wanted was their personal needs for portability, eliminating lifetime caps, and getting rid of pre-existing refusals while ignoring COSTS and the affordable quality medical care NEEDS of the bulk of Americans.  
9. The White House ignored Single-Payer immediately and ignored the need to control overcharging.
10. Tragically, Republicans are simply out to make the insurance, Big pharma, and for-profit providers even RICHER at our and Taxpayer Expense and by eliminating critical healthcare services to the sick while preventing patients from able to protect their own LIVES - with so-called tort reform.

[Thanks to themodernleader and Marcospinelli]
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:40 AM on 02/01/2011
Fine separate the mandate from the law then we Liberals will ultimately get what we want and that is Medicare for all when the insurance companies go broke because without the mandate they are done. And the conservatives in
their selfish quest to kill this law just to hurt Obama will get what they say they don't want the most National Health Care for all. So keep pushing.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BMcCue7
I'm Buddy McCue (and you're not.)
11:06 AM on 02/01/2011
Yes, it's strange isn't it?

The very part of the law that the conservatives are saying is unconstitutional is the conservative part of it.
04:17 PM on 02/01/2011
Legally, that cannot happen. As stated in the ruling, there is no severability clause. A severability clause is normal because it allows portions of a law to be severed (removed) as the result of legal challenges without affecting the entire bill. This law must either stand in its entirety or fall in its entirety because nothing can be separated (severed). The Dem leadership failed to include the clause in this bill.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Adartist777
Middle Class Warrior
10:22 AM on 02/01/2011
All of us know here that if uninsured people get sick, they don't go away. They go to their nearest public hospital for treatment. Then that hospital charges the state for the uninsured patient's care. This in turn causes a crisis with any particular state's Medicaid.

So if the Republicans have a better idea, they should make us aware of it because our current health care system is not sustainable and lives will be lost. So far, we haven't heard any credible ideas from the Republicans because they apparently don't have any clue on an alternative health care plan.

We have heard ideas in the past for health care savings plans and allowing the purchase of insurance over state lines. But when you have five major monopolistic health care companies in the entire US, there really is not worthwhile savings in their idea.

So Republicans, the ball is in your court. How do you solve the health care crisis?