Uncategorized

CLINTON APPOINTEE ACTIVIST JUDGE IN DETROIT DISMISSES HEALTH CARE CHALLENGE………

Sorry for the off topic story, but this next story is so frustrating to the Tundra Tabloids, and has made the TT so spitting angry that it has to blog about it. 
ANTI-US CONSTITUTION JUDGE
The health care challenge initiated by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of plaintiffs seeking to overturn the current administration’s healthcare legislation, -that totally revolutionizes the relationship  between the citizen and the US government- suffered a blow at the hands of an activist judge in Detroit Michigan, who doesn’t either understand the US Constitution or is deliberately seeking to subvert it. 
This ding bat activist judge ruled that: Far from “inactivity,” by choosing to forgo insurance plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars, $43 billion in 2008, onto other market participants.”
It’s a moronic ruling and something that the founding fathers of the nascent US republic would have rejected out of hand, seeing that they were just recently involved in fighting a tyranny (the British government), they would have been loathe to thrust upon their own new born state with yet another tyranny of the same caliber. Then again, what would you expect from a Clinton appointee?
Thankfully in Florida, the ruling went the other way, as well as the Thomas More Law Center filing an appeal to the judge’s moronic ruling. If the Michigan judge’s ruling were to stand, and become a de facto ruling across the board throughout the entire US, it would be the first time a penalty would be imposed upon a citizen for not engaging in commerce.
The judge presupposes that the individual will engage in commerce one day, and that eventuality, can be considered as conducting in commerce now, even though it hasn’t happened yet. The entire argument by the judge and the Democrats is predicated on the absurd notion that the commerce clause also pertains to business transactions between private citizens and parties within state lines. It was never designed to be so. 
Only through political rulings by activist judges has the Commerce Clause been invoked and implemented in a situation where no commerce has taken place, as effecting interstate commerce. Many years ago, a farmer, who intended to sell his wheat locally, was deemed by a idiot court as engaging in interstate commerce even though he was selling locally because in doing so it affected prices elsewhere. The idiotic intrusion by an activist court back then, set the stage for a future scenario in which the federal government (under Obama) thinks it can force a private citizen into a business contract.
This is something that the founding fathers of the United States would never sign on to, an over-powerful federal government dictating to the states and to individuals, what is and isn’t commerce in order to further its own power grab vis-a-vis the independent (then 13) 50 states, let alone against the individual. This is an absurd moment in which a highly anti-constitutional ruling needs to be pounded on its ear and the way made for the repealing of Obama-care. KGS

NOTE: There is no such thing as a Commerce Clause in the US Consitution, it’s only a term used to define points of argument concerning inter state commerce defined by the US Constitution.

Detroit federal judge dismisses national health care challenge, attorney vows appeal

A federal judge in Detroit on Thursday dismissed a challenge to the national health care law approved by Congress earlier this year, rejecting claims the law violates the U.S. Constitution by regulating inactivity.

The ruling by District Court Judge George Steeh is the first of its kind but certainly will not be the last: Nationwide, there are more than 15 pending challenges to the law.

Attorneys for the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center, representing four Michigan residents, argued Congress violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by potentially penalizing citizens that do not purchase a commercial product, namely health insurance, as required by 2014.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *