Updates on Multi-State Lawsuit
A compilation of this morning’s stories regarding Judge Vinson’s ruling on the motion to dismiss follows below. Three thoughts to put the developments in context:
- Many of the stories point out what this morning’s Politico piece emphasized – Judge Vinson’s ruling rejected the “Alice in Wonderland” reasoning behind the individual mandate. Specifically, the ruling rejected the notion that Democrats could “absolutely reject” the notion that the individual mandate was a tax before the bill passed – as President Obama claimed in his September 2009 interview with George Stephanopoulos – only for the Justice Department to defend the provision as a constitutional tax following its enactment.
- The Wall Street Journal piece notes the contradictions inherent in the government’s legal defense. Because the health care law had no severability clause, the Administration is trying to argue that other portions of the law (e.g., the student loan provisions included in reconciliation) should not be struck down if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional. But that of course undermines the argument that the mandate is part of a larger health regulatory scheme, and the law cannot stand without the mandate left intact.
- The New York Times called yesterday’s decision a “foreboding ruling for the Obama Administration” in its lead paragraph. This is the second time in as many days that the Times has cast doubt on the future feasibility of the health care law. Just yesterday, a paragraph in a separate story on the recent disappearance of child-only insurance policies noted that “the problem [of coverage for people with pre-existing conditions] may be solved in 2014. If Democrats can beat back Republican efforts to dismantle the law, most Americans will be required to carry health insurance.” Do these twin statements mean the New York Times now views the law’s full implementation as something far from certain?
In addition to the above, there are stories from the AP, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and The Hill. The Journal also had a good editorial this morning on the issue, in addition to its news article above.