Enemies of Obamacare Should Curb Their Enthusiasm: Ann Woolner (Bloomberg 10/19/10)

A federal judge in Pensacola, Florida, gave enemies of the national health care reform law reason to rejoice last week when he said it looks sort of unconstitutional.

“This ruling is a victory for the states, small businesses and the American people,” crowed Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, one of the leaders behind the challenge.

Might I suggest a curbing of enthusiasm? A closer look at this and other health-care rulings shows the legal case against so-called Obamacare has a long, difficult slog ahead.

You wouldn’t know that from some of the language in U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson’s 65-page decision last week. He slammed the notion Congress has the constitutional authority to require all Americans to buy health insurance.

“The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent,” Vinson said.

The case is in an early stage, so he hasn’t yet actually struck down the law. Vinson merely said the appearance of unconstitutionality is strong enough to keep the case going. As a starting point, Vinson’s order cheers Obamacare haters.

“This is not even a close call,” the judge wrote.

But if it’s that obvious, at least one other judge would have reached the same conclusion on the same question. None have.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson of Richmond, Virginia, ruled in August that it’s not the least bit clear whether Congress can do what it did. Hudson wanted more argument before deciding.

[SNIP]

To recap, one judge says yes, one says no, and one is undecided. That seems like a close call to me.

And yet, that one, commerce-clause argument is the strongest one left in the case before Vinson, who tossed out four other reasons offered for why the law should be struck down.

Barely surviving his pen is the notion that by greatly expanding Medicaid, a joint federal-state program for the poor, Congress is unconstitutionally coercing states to spend money they don’t want to spend.

That claim, the judge ruled, is indeed a “close call.”

So there’s a good chance he’ll pare that out of the case, too, leaving only the pivotal question of whether Congress overstepped its authority under the Commerce Clause.

Twenty States

[SNIP]

The best chance for a states’ rights argument to win is in Virginia. The commonwealth has a unique case because its legislature passed the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, which says Virginians can’t be forced to buy insurance.

[SNIP]

No Relevance

Look, some of the shenanigans involved in the bill’s passage were shameful. But that has nothing to do with whether the law is constitutional or Vinson’s job in determining it, as the judge acknowledges. (Emphasis added)

But then, that’s why this case was brought to Pensacola, because only conservative, Republican-appointed judges sit there. (Emphasis added)

The fact that Vinson killed most of the lawsuit means either that his obvious bias didn’t interfere with his judgment, or that the part he left alive is a much closer call than he says. (Emphasis added)

(Ann Woolner is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)