AND NOW THE RULING – AT 7:49 P.M. ET:  Part of Obamacare has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in Virginia.  Cautionary note:  This is only one judge.   They have others stored away.  From The New York Times:

A federal district judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the keystone provision in the Obama health care law is unconstitutional, becoming the first court in the country to invalidate any part of the sprawling act and ensuring that appellate courts will receive contradictory opinions from below. 

Judge Henry E. Hudson, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, declined the plaintiff’s request to freeze implementation of the law pending appeal, meaning that there should be no immediate effect on the ongoing rollout of the law. But the ruling is likely to create confusion among the public and further destabilize political support for legislation that is under fierce attack from Republicans in Congress and in many statehouses.

In a 42-page opinion issued in Richmond, Va., Judge Hudson wrote that the law’s central requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The insurance mandate is central to the law’s mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured because insurers argue that only by requiring healthy people to have policies can they afford to treat those with expensive chronic conditions.

COMMENT:  This will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court, but it may take a few years.  In the meantime, as the story says, it will add to the confusion and uncertainty over Obamacare.

By the way, the Times's report is emblematic of so much that is wrong with journalism today.  The reporter didn't miss an opportunity to tell us all about the judge's Republican background and Republican sponsorship of opposition to Obamacare.

The opinion by Judge Hudson, who has a long history in Republican politics in northern Virginia, continued a partisan pattern in the health care cases. Thus far, judges appointed by Republican presidents have ruled consistently against the Obama administration while Democratic appointees have found for it.

That has reinforced the notion — fueled by the White House — that the lawsuits are as much a political assault as a constitutional one. The Richmond case was filed by Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, a Republican, and all but one of the 20 attorneys general and governors who filed a similar case in Pensacola, Fla., are Republicans. Other lawsuits have been filed by conservative law firms and interest groups.

Now, I have absolutely no problem with The Times giving us some of the political background of the case.  It's the hypocrisy and inconsistency that worries me.  The Times, and other papers, routinely refer to far-left operators as "peace activists," "human rights activists," and "progressives," sparing us any semblance of the whole truth.  The only time detail is provided is when it's Republican detail. 

Readers do indeed detect this, and it weakens credibility.  Weren't there once editors?

December 13, 2010