This just in from the AP:
PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) — Federal judge in Florida strikes down Obama health care plan as unconstitutional.
Here is Video of the decision announcement at Fox News by Megan Kelly via Eyeblast:
Update #4: Here’s the text of the entire decision handed down: (H/T Weasel Zippers)
A highlight via Ace of Spades HQ:
It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.…
In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch, and that seems to fit. It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed. There are simply too many moving parts in the Act and too many provisions dependent (directly and indirectly) on the individual mandate and other health insurance provisions — which, as noted, were the chief engines that drove the entire legislative effort — for me to try and dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone. Such a quasi-legislative undertaking would be particularly inappropriate in light of the fact that any statute that might conceivably be left over after this analysis is complete would plainly not serve Congress’ main purpose and primary objective in passing the Act. The statute is, after all, called “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” not “The Abstinence Education and Bone Marrow Density Testing Act.” The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker.
This is going to really put a monkey wrench Obama’s plans. Although, I tend to think that the Obama Administration will argue it to the Supreme Court of the United States. The reaction from the White House is going to be an interesting one.
I do believe, that if this Healthcare Bill is scrapped, and they Democrats lose this issue; this may could very well render President Obama unelectable in 2012. Something tells me, that this entire Presidency is going to be Jimmy Carter all over again.
Stay Tuned.
Update: Memeorandum has the roundup of reactions so far.
Update #2: Jonathon Chait at The New Republic weighs in:
That aside, the pattern once again has held that every Republican-appointed judge has ruled against the law’s constitutionality and every Democratic-appointed-judge has ruled for it. Now, the ultimate arbiter is the Supreme Court, where Republican appointees hold a 5-4 majority, though one of those 5 (Anthony Kennedy) is not a completely down-the-line Republican.
Given this divide, wouldn’t it make sense to… let elected officials decide? That’s the logic of judicial restraint, anyway, and it’s logic conservatives used to employ about a host of topics. But that was before they gained the ability to win huge victories in the courts that they couldn’t win at the ballot box.
Update #3: Steve Benon at Washington Monthly says:
Republicans are thrilled, of course, because activist court rulings are to be celebrated, just so long as it’s activism the right can agree with.
Liberals do the same thing Steve; so quit your whining, please. You look childish.
Update #5: AllahPundit weighs in:
What is a bit surprising is that Vinson went further and held that the mandate isn’t “severable” from the rest of the law — which means that the whole law is unconstitutional, not just the part that requires people to buy insurance. That’s unusual insofar as courts like to be modest when striking down statutes; if they can find a section of it unconstitutional while preserving the rest of it, they’ll do so out of respect for the democratic branches that enacted it. In this case, however, as we’ve been told by Democrats many times, you can’t have universal health care unless you force people to pay for it. Cutting the mandate out of O-Care and keeping the rest of the scheme intact would create a nightmare scenario in which people avoid buying insurance until they get sick, with insurers required to accept them by the new rules governing preexisting conditions. Before long, that cost burden would drive most insurers into bankruptcy, with the golden age of a public option or single-payer soon to follow.
[…]
A fun fact about ObamaCare: Unlike virtually every other federal statute, it contains no “severabililty clause” at the end requesting that if any part of it should be held unconstitutional in court, the rest should be preserved as good law. Vinson actually mentions that fact in the opinion and notes that an earlier draft of the law did contain such a clause, suggesting that it was deliberately dropped because even Congress agrees that you can’t sever any one part from such an elaborate scheme. The truth, however, may be more prosaic: According to a Democratic aide who spoke to the Times back in November, the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!
Update #6: Obligatory:
and….:
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. 😛