No surprise

[ mjb <----->; "imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems", is nazi mentality. "seems to us a political judgment rather than a recognition of constitutional limitations" is blatant hypocrisy by example of bias as he writes "seems to us" but not all Americans, or the ones he/she doesn't like. the oppositional tenet is not regarding the burgeoning mandate, but that the mandate is unconstitutional, by contention of the first amendment and the fourteenth. wherein the Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. this quintessentially includes any mandate for any purchase, whereas fairness is not achieved to persons conscripted to care when "welfare state" has the option to not use state healthcare services, and by having a welfare state the fairness of choice not afforded, thereby the offense to the first amendment, would logically dispose the fair government action for healthcare be an introduction of socialized-medicine, (such as National Health Service for example) and not the mandate. this fascist judge should be impeached, liberal is another word for radical, socialist is another word for communist. <-------> /mjb ]

Blog: No surprise: Liberal appeals court upholds Obamacare legality:
by Rick Moran

The judge who handed down this decision was appointed by Bush #41 and his opinion is a recipe for eventual servitude:

"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins," he wrote. The fact that Congress may have never issued an individual mandate to purchase something before, a central argument for many opposing the law, "seems to us a political judgment rather than a recognition of constitutional limitations," he wrote.

This is what passes for learned opinion in the courts these days. A "political judgment?" If there was ever a constitutional question to be decided, it is with the mandate. And how about that strawman argument with regards to federal regulation? Who said anything anywhere about being "free" of federal regulation? The argument is that the regulation goes too far - a simple concept that escaped this idiot judge.
Brace yourself for some bad news from SCOTUS on Obamacare. Historically, the Supremes look very closely at appellate decisions for guidance. The tally is not good - 3 out of 5 appeals cases have come down in favor of Obamacare. This does not bode well for the case now before the Supreme Court.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/no_surprise_liberal_appeals_court_upholds_obamacare_legality.html#ixzz1dBvKrqR0

"Who said anything anywhere about being "free" of federal regulation?"

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/no_surprise_liberal_appeals_court_upholds_obamacare_legality.html#ixzz1dBuxfn3j