This is interesting. Yesterday’s article by Karl Denninger had a different feel from this one in the NY Times, showing how people can read what they want into something rather ambiguous. I think the provision in quesiton is unconstitutional, but that doesn’t mean it the Court will see it that way. Interpretation of the law is so, so subjective. – Ilene
Excerpt:
Judge Vinson wrote Thursday that his initial order “was as clear and unambiguous as it could be” and that the federal government had no right “to basically ignore” it.
He said he had expected the Justice Department, which represents the administration, to immediately seek a stay of his ruling. He said that in order “to save time in this time-is-of-the-essence case,” he would treat the government’s motion to clarify as a request for a stay. And then he granted it.
In a 20-page order, Judge Vinson wrote that “reasonable and intelligent people (and reasonable and intelligent jurists) can disagree” about the constitutionality of the insurance requirement. The judge ruled that the act of not purchasing insurance is not an activity that can, under Supreme Court precedent, be penalized by Congress. Justice Department lawyers have countered that not buying insurance is an active decision, with significant implications for the health care market, that can therefore be regulated.
Because that legal question has not been addressed directly by the Supreme Court, Judge Vinson acknowledged that the government had some chance of prevailing on appeal, a primary requirement for a stay.
Full article here: Judge Who Ruled Against Health Care Law Keeps It in Effect – NYTimes.com.
