Appeals Courts Come up with "Creative Premise" with which to Deny ObamaCare Challenge

Defying every single ruling before them, be they from Republican-nominated judges or Democrat-nominated judges, the Fourth Circuit US Court of Appeals has declared that ObamaCare cannot be challenged in the first place.  Not only does this spit in the face of every other judge that has ruled on this (regardless of party), but it also attempts to redefine the wording in the bill itself, something that can easily be termed "legislation from the bench."

And no big surprise, the people who came up with this "creative premise" all said that it was Constitutional, anyway, and they were all appointed by Democrat Administrations.  Go figure:

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has rejected two Obamacare constitutional challenges, on the creative premise that the individual mandate is a tax, and that the Anti-Injunction Act requires that a tax already be implemented in order for plaintiffs to have standing to sue on the basis that a tax is unconstitutional.

Up to this point, every single court that has ruled on the Obamacare challenges, whether led by Republican or Democratic appointees, has agreed that the individual mandate in PPACA is a penalty, not a tax. So it will be interesting to read the opinions in Virginia v. Sebelius and Liberty v. Geithner (which I’ve uploaded to this blog) to see how the judges justified this approach. The judges also write that, even if the plaintiffs had had standing to sue, they would have upheld the mandate.

The three judges who ruled on the case were all Democratic appointees, including two by President Obama: Diana Motz of Baltimore (Clinton), Andre Davis of Baltimore (Obama), and James Wynn of Raleigh (Obama).

Please bookmark!