Legal Conservative Blog

Healthcare Lawsuit- Judge strikes entire act based on individual mandate- but finds no merit to the Medicaid claim

Breaking news, decision just came down.  Analysis to follow. vinson-ruling

Excerpt from the opinion:

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded
the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is
not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and
inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth
of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and
regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute
has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.30
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the
entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I
am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is
virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it
is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act.”

Read Full Entry »
Posted on January 31st, 2011 by Woodring Law, filed under Uncategorized

Where judicial activism morphs into disregard

Where judicial activism morphs into disregard.

Interesting article. The Ninth Circuit is maintaining its role as the most reversed circuit. Some excerpts below:

Four times this month the U.S. Supreme Court has slapped down the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Four times the Big Bench unanimously reversed Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decisions. Unanimous is a big deal. It means that there’s no left-right political divide in the Big Bench’s findings – just right on the law and wrong on the law.

Followers of the Ninth Circuit are painfully aware of its reputation as an activist court that flouts laws it doesn’t like and bulldozes rulings that defy its left-leaning politics. The San Francisco-based judicial district serves as a textbook example of how judges should not behave.

Read Full Entry »
Posted on January 30th, 2011 by Woodring Law, filed under Uncategorized

Court Allows Emanuel on Ballot for Chicago Mayor –

Court Allows Emanuel on Ballot for Chicago Mayor –

This is an interesting decision, written by a court that appeared intent on chastising the lower appellate tribunal.  If the supreme court analysis of Illinois law was correct, this is a classic case of judicial activism.  Opinion here: Rahm

Some excerpts from the decision below:

Before proceeding to the merits, we wish to emphasize that, until just a few days ago, the governing law on this question had been settled in this State for going on 150 years. In Smith v. People ex rel.Frisbie, 44 Ill. 16 (1867), this court was faced with a question remarkably similar to that which is before us today.

Thus, from April 1867 through January 24 of this year, the principles governing the question before us were settled. Things changed, however, when the appellate court below issued its decision and announced that it was no longer bound by any of the law cited above, including this court’s decision in Smith, but was instead free to craft its own original standard for determining a candidate’s residency.  See No. 1–11–0033, slip op. at 6-8 (dismissing the foregoing authority in its entirety). Thus, our review of the appellate court’s decision in this case begins not where it should, with an assessment of whether the court accurately applied established Illinois law to the particular facts, but with an assessment of whether the appellate court was justified in tossing out 150 years of settled residency law in favor of its own preferred standard. We emphatically hold that it was not.

But, the concurring justices did not seem to think that the case was that clear cut, partly because of the supreme court allowing prior conflicting precedent:

Suffice it to say, therefore, that this court has not always spoken
clearly on what is meant by residency, and the majority should
acknowledge this fact. This is why both sides in this dispute can
contend that their respective positions are supported by decades of
precedent. Indeed, contrary to the majority’s assertions, the only thing
that is well established in this case is the confusion that has existed on
this subject. The majority today now makes clear that residency for all
purposes is the equivalent of domicile. The majority, therefore, should
overrule those portions of Pope, Park, and Clark which hold to the

It is for this reason that the tone taken by the majority today is
unfortunate. Because our own case law was, until today, unclear, it is
unfair of the majority to state that the appellate court majority
“toss[ed] out 150 years of settled residency law” (slip op. at 10),
adopted a “previously unheard-of test for residency” (slip op. 17), or
was engaged in a “mysterious” analysis (slip op. at 16). In order to
properly address the parties’ arguments, the appellate court had to
reconcile this court’s conflicting pronouncements on the question of
residency. That court did the best it could without the benefit of a
supreme court opinion which clarified the standards. By refusing to
acknowledge the role our own case law has played in creating the
dispute before us, the majority unwittingly adds credence to the
inflammatory statements contained in the dissenting opinion below.

Read Full Entry »
Posted on January 27th, 2011 by Woodring Law, filed under Uncategorized

Florida Health Care Lawsuit Update

Well, as I write this, the arguments are underway in federal court in Pensacola on the cross motions for summary judgment in the case challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare.  For those of you following this case closely, attached are the parties motions and responses that are being argued today:   Plaintiffs MSJ-Memo; Plaintiffs MSJREPLY ; Plaintiffs Resp MSJ-Memo ; US MSJ-Memo; US Resp MSJREPLY ; US Resp MSJ-Memo

I believe the individual mandate is again likely to be held unconstitutional, but that that is likely to be the only count so decided.

Read Full Entry »
Posted on December 16th, 2010 by Woodring Law, filed under Uncategorized

Foreclosure Defenses- A Conservative Perspective

The Wall Street Journal has an article today about the attorneys who have done some of the litigation and discovery that has uncovered alleged “robo-signers.  Clearly, there is no excuse if employees of the banks have made false representations in documents, but this issue begs the question of the impact any misrepresentations should have on the foreclosures, and of the broader defense claims  to foreclosures.  Article below:

Paperwork Trail: The Lawyers Who Fight Foreclosures –

On the broader question of foreclosure defenses, it appears that foreclosures should be  a fairly  simple process, and in fact half of the states in this country do not require a legal case to be filed to effect a foreclosure.

The foreclosure question is what are the terms of the mortgage, and are you in default under the terms of the mortgage.  If you have not made payments for 6 months, you are going to be in default.

Once it is determined you are in default, the only remaining material questions are determining the amount owed on the note with any contractual penalties and interest, needed to establish any deficiency judgment amount, or rarely, if there is equity in the house after the amount of the note is satisfied.

So, other than a defense to foreclosure that payments have been timely made, and note is not in default, or possibly a defense to the total amount of the debt due and owing, which potentially would be an issue in many states in a separate action for a deficiency judgment, what other defenses should remain?

Does it even matter who owns the mortgage note? Clearly, it matters to the owners of the note, but this should be basically legally irrelevant from a home owner’ perspective – 6 months in default, it is clear that someone else other than the homeowner has a better title at that point.

There are no economic free rides, so someone is paying the cost in a case such as the Jacksonville case, where the homeowners have been living in a home they have not paid a mortgage on for five years. Everyone still making mortgage payments should be outraged.

Misrepresentations under oath must always be punished, but it appears that the alleged misrepresentations have no bearing on the underlying homeowner obligations, and should therefore not be a basis to defend being in default on a mortgage.

Read Full Entry »
Posted on October 21st, 2010 by Woodring Law, filed under Uncategorized
1 Comment »

Key count in health care lawsuit survives motion to dismiss

Today Judge Vinson issued his order on President Obama’s motion to dismiss in the health care lawsuit that Florida and other states have filed in the northern district. The key count, the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate requiring purchase of health care or a penalty survived, as did a coercion count in regard to the state participation in the federal health scheme. Several other counts were dismissed, because of existing Supreme Court precedent that cannot be changed but by the Supreme Court, but the individual mandate count surviving is key. Health Care Order on Motion to Dismiss

Read Full Entry »
Posted on October 14th, 2010 by Woodring Law, filed under Uncategorized
1 Comment »

Amending the Constitution by Convention: A Complete View of the Founders’ Plan | Goldwater Institute

Amending the Constitution by Convention: A Complete View of the Founders’ Plan | Goldwater Institute.  The Goldwater institute has put out an interesting historical argument in support of limited constitutional conventions being contemplated by the founders. Most of the conclusions reached in the report are fairly non- controversial, with the exception of the analysis of whether the first constitutional convention was perceived as a runaway convention because it went beyond amending the Articles of Confederation.

Read Full Entry »
Posted on September 16th, 2010 by Woodring Law, filed under Uncategorized

Comes a Horseman – Article – National Review Online

Comes a Horseman – Article – National Review Online. Have you ever wondered where the term “living constitution” originated? Well, this article will give you the answer. Seriously, this article is an excellent read on the change that occurred when FDR threatened to pack the court, and provides a good historical basis to see the origins of progressive legal thought untethered from constitutional restraints that have now led to the issues raised in the health care lawsuit.

Read Full Entry »
Posted on September 15th, 2010 by Woodring Law, filed under Uncategorized

The Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, and the Constitution They Created

This was a busy, but intellectually rich weekend for me. On Friday I was in Orlando speaking at a Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) event on voter registration,early voting and absentee ballots, and pre- election legal challenges.  I then had to fly to Atlanta to participate in a symposium that was being co-hosted by the Federalist society and the Liberty Fund, which gathering donated the title to this post.  It was intellectually stimulating in that we had the luxury of actually reading and discussing many of the Federalist papers and the Anti -Federalist writings as well.  This was the first time that I had read many of the Anti-Federalist selections, and it was interesting that some of the problems they anticipated with the Constitution were not realized under the original Constitution, but only after the adoption of the 16th and 17th Amendments.

Read Full Entry »
Posted on September 13th, 2010 by Woodring Law, filed under Uncategorized
1 Comment »

11th Circuit Enjoins Florida from providing McCollum Funds in Governor’s Race Based on Scott’s Expenditures.

With a very rapid ruling, oral argument only having been held this morning, the 11th Circuit has preliminarily enjoined Florida from paying our any state funds to McCollum once Scott exceeds the 24.9 million cap. Opinion is attached scotts-appeal-ruling.  Basically, the court held that Scott’s speech would be impaired, Strict scrutiny would apply, no compelling interest had been demonstrated, but even if anti corruption were a compelling interest, the state statute was not narrowly tailored to address that interest.

Read Full Entry »
Posted on July 30th, 2010 by Woodring Law, filed under Uncategorized
« Previous Next »