The ruling is being appealed and nothing changes for now. SCOTUS will probably have to get involved for the third time, and that could take a while because it has to be heard by an Appeals Court first.
"unconstitutional because you cannot force a citizen to buy something they do not want."
No, that isn't at all the reason the judge gave. SCOTUS said in 2012 that the individual mandate is constitutional. What this judge said was that since the individual mandate has been eliminated by Executive Order, the ACA “can no longer be fairly read as an exercise of Congress’ tax power.” He also said that this insurance requirement “is essential to and inseverable from the remainder of the ACA”, and therefore, without it the whole act is invalid.
Besides, if your premise were correct, how do you explain mandatory automobile insurance?
"Another promise kept "
Really? What did he have to do with this? The lawsuit was brought by the AGs of several states. And as I recall, his promise was to replace the ACA with "something much better" - so what's that replacement? |
