Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Cornyn Responds to Florida Judge's Healthcare Ruling

Another blow to the mess that is Obamacare. Here is Senator Cornyn's response:

Senator Cornyn Responds to Florida Healthcare Ruling

“The Federal Government Cannot Force a Citizen to Buy Something They Don’t Want”
Jan 31 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) issued this statement today in response to the decision by a federal judge in Florida that the individual mandate central to the Obama health care law is unconstitutional – making the entire law void:

"Today another court has ruled that the Federal Government cannot force a citizen to buy something they don’t want. The individual mandate in the President’s signature health care bill impinges on the individual liberties our founders fought so hard to protect and exceeds the government of limited powers they fought so hard to create. I will continue to work with my colleagues to repeal this massive, ill-conceived bill and replace it with sensible, substantive reform that will not sink future generations further into debt.”


The Heathen Republican said...

I can't believe the Democrats didn't think to include a severability clause in the bill. I know they never thought the constitutional challenges would be taken seriously, but they had plenty of forewarning.

I'm now more optimistic. The whole thing may very well get thrown out by the Supreme Court.

BJ said...

Well, I see you still like to portray the bill as Obamacare instead of its legitimate billing. I suppose you do this to be coy and cute in your thinking that it demeans the bill.

Nonetheless, all this recent hoopla on two federal judges deciding the bill as unconstitutional, still doesn't override the two federal judges' conclusions that it is constitutional and the dozens of others who have actually thrown the frivolous Republican lawsuits out of their courts rather than to hear them.

For you benevolent (and apparently one heathen) Republicans out there...one of your own in Senate Judiciary Committee testimony earlier this week, lit into Florida's federal judge, Roger Vinson's conclusion that the bill was unconstitutional. That Republican is Charles Fried, former Reagan Solicitor General and current Harvard law professor. He quite emphatically stated, "I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional."

With your reasoning, I suppose first up for repeal is required auto liability insurance and mortgaged home owner's insurance. They are required by law. Don't we need first, to repeal them. Naw, just the health care provision, because that is the political Republican ploy...there's no ground to gain politically in the other insurance laws; besides it would only make one look stupider, now wouldn't it.

Besides, a country's true greatness is only a measure of how it takes care of its citizenry.

As so spoken by a liberal redneck nondenominational Independent.

The Heathen Republican said...

We all know that these rulings don't really count -- both Dems and the GOP are waiting for the supreme court. The rulings are only important in that they are likely to inform the supreme court justices' ultimate decisions. That's why Vinson's ruling is particularly important since it addresses multiple aspects of the law.

As for the moniker ObamaCare, it's economy of language. Everyone knows what we're talking about when we use the term ObamaCare. Do you use the phrases "Social Security," "Medicare," "Medicaid," or "war in Iraq"? If you look up the bills that authorized them you'll find that those aren't the actual names of the bills. But over time, we all develop the short-hand.

BJ said...

Well put Heathen and that's fine and dandy..if only it truly was the reasoning for the term Obamacare. But, we all can agree for most using the term, it is for derogatory effect. You yourself know that Heathen,so please let's not masquerade. Most that are for the bill simply call it healthcare reform.

Obama had not much to do at all with the final wording; he preferred instead to let both Houses of Congress hash it out and that is where the Party of No-No-No had their effect in dragging the new legislation out with countless stalling tactics.

The final bill had their fingerprints all over it, but Republicans, for pure political partisanship voted of course...no.

In my opinion that is what made Obama begin to appear pansy-like--his quest for a bipartisanship bill. After the third no, he should have actually inducted more of an Obamacare bill, shove the Republicans to the side and thrust the bill through as he envisioned it to be. Then the new law could appropriately be called Obamacare and stand on its own merit.

Nice to yak with ya...