SHould the mandate or the entire bill go?

[The Rabbi]

From the arguments it sure looks like the mandate part of Obamacare is toast. The question was argued on the last day whether the entire bill or just that part of it should be struck down. Justice Ginsburg argued that striking the entire bill would be a radical exercise in judicial power. Justice Scalia argued that not striking the entire bill would be an exercise in judicial power.
I am inclined to agree with Scalia (surprise). Since so much of the bill hinges on the mandate leaving any part of it would mean essentially the justices deciding what should or shouldn't be the law. Which is really Congress' role. Better to nix the whole thing and let Congress start over.

 

[NLT]

Without the mandate, the house of cards fall.

 

[occupied]

If struck down in it's entirety, do you think congress would do anything at all to replace it? Not a chance in hell, we get to wait another ten or twenty years for something that should have been done twenty years ago.

 

[NLT]

If you want a system like they have in Socialist countrys, its not gonna happen. Too many freeloaders will bankrupt any health care program.

 

[occupied]

If you want a system like they have in Socialist countrys, its not gonna happen. Too many freeloaders will bankrupt any health care program.

If it gets so expensive that the ranks of the uninsured continue to swell it's going to bankrupt anyway.

 

[ecinicola]

I think the mandate will not be accepted. It is not constitutional. If the judges follow the constitution, obamacare will be voted down.

 

[Claudette]

From the arguments it sure looks like the mandate part of Obamacare is toast. The question was argued on the last day whether the entire bill or just that part of it should be struck down. Justice Ginsburg argued that striking the entire bill would be a radical exercise in judicial power. Justice Scalia argued that not striking the entire bill would be an exercise in judicial power.
I am inclined to agree with Scalia (surprise). Since so much of the bill hinges on the mandate leaving any part of it would mean essentially the justices deciding what should or shouldn't be the law. Which is really Congress' role. Better to nix the whole thing and let Congress start over.

I agree.

The whole plan needs to go.

It needs real reform as to cost and I sure hope it can get done.

It won't be till after Nov 2012 though.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

From the arguments it sure looks like the mandate part of Obamacare is toast. The question was argued on the last day whether the entire bill or just that part of it should be struck down. Justice Ginsburg argued that striking the entire bill would be a radical exercise in judicial power. Justice Scalia argued that not striking the entire bill would be an exercise in judicial power.
I am inclined to agree with Scalia (surprise). Since so much of the bill hinges on the mandate leaving any part of it would mean essentially the justices deciding what should or shouldn't be the law. Which is really Congress' role. Better to nix the whole thing and let Congress start over.

It is not the courts job to re-write and edit legislation. It is their job to decide if legislation is constitutional or not, if the legislation is not constitutional then the entire bill goes. Once this happens congress has to write a new piece of legislation.

That is how our system works, well how it has worked anyway.

 

[California Girl]

If struck down in it's entirety, do you think congress would do anything at all to replace it? Not a chance in hell, we get to wait another ten or twenty years for something that should have been done twenty years ago.

Blame Obama.... the 'Constitutional lawyer' who doesn't know the Constitution well enough to sign off a bill that is Constitutional.

 

[VaYank5150]

From the arguments it sure looks like the mandate part of Obamacare is toast. The question was argued on the last day whether the entire bill or just that part of it should be struck down. Justice Ginsburg argued that striking the entire bill would be a radical exercise in judicial power. Justice Scalia argued that not striking the entire bill would be an exercise in judicial power.
I am inclined to agree with Scalia (surprise). Since so much of the bill hinges on the mandate leaving any part of it would mean essentially the justices deciding what should or shouldn't be the law. Which is really Congress' role. Better to nix the whole thing and let Congress start over.

It was MY understanding that the USSC is ruling on the Constitutionality of the law. While they may find that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, they do not have the right to strike down the whole law, simply because the success of the law hinges on the mandate. Right?

 

[Katzndogz]

The problem with only striking out the individual mandate is that democrats deliberately wrote the bill without a severability clause. They did that because they felt that the bill was so sweeping that some of it would be acceptable. Without a severability clause, even the acceptable parts would have to go. The court would never go that far. It was a miscalculation, the entire bill must fail because unconstitutional parts cannot be severed out. A second reason was that democrats felt with a severability clause the bill would be dismantled piece by piece over the course of years hampering its implementation.

Suggesting that the Justices read all 2007 pages to find if they can divine a severability clause themselves didn't work.

 

[VaYank5150]

The problem with only striking out the individual mandate is that democrats deliberately wrote the bill without a severability clause. They did that because they felt that the bill was so sweeping that some of it would be acceptable. Without a severability clause, even the acceptable parts would have to do. The court would never go that far. It was a miscalculation, the entire bill must fail because unconstitutional parts cannot be severed out. A second reason was that democrats felt with a severability clause the bill would be dismantled piece by piece over the course of years hampering its implementation.

Suggesting that the Justices read all 2007 pages to find if they can divine a severability clause themselves didn't work.

Does anyone know WHY the justices refused to actually read the bill they are being paid to rule on?

 

[Katzndogz]

From the arguments it sure looks like the mandate part of Obamacare is toast. The question was argued on the last day whether the entire bill or just that part of it should be struck down. Justice Ginsburg argued that striking the entire bill would be a radical exercise in judicial power. Justice Scalia argued that not striking the entire bill would be an exercise in judicial power.
I am inclined to agree with Scalia (surprise). Since so much of the bill hinges on the mandate leaving any part of it would mean essentially the justices deciding what should or shouldn't be the law. Which is really Congress' role. Better to nix the whole thing and let Congress start over.

It was MY understanding that the USSC is ruling on the Constitutionality of the law. While they may find that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, they do not have the right to strike down the whole law, simply because the success of the law hinges on the mandate. Right?

They might not have a choice. I would expect the dissent will deal with this.

 

[Katzndogz]

The problem with only striking out the individual mandate is that democrats deliberately wrote the bill without a severability clause. They did that because they felt that the bill was so sweeping that some of it would be acceptable. Without a severability clause, even the acceptable parts would have to do. The court would never go that far. It was a miscalculation, the entire bill must fail because unconstitutional parts cannot be severed out. A second reason was that democrats felt with a severability clause the bill would be dismantled piece by piece over the course of years hampering its implementation.

Suggesting that the Justices read all 2007 pages to find if they can divine a severability clause themselves didn't work.

Does anyone know WHY the justices refused to actually read the bill they are being paid to rule on?

Asked and answered. Cruel and Unusual punishment. This isn't surprising since no one has ever read the bill. We pay legislators who never read the bill before they voted on it. The people who wrote it never read it. It was written in sections, by committee. Those who wrote a section never read the sections written by others.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The problem with only striking out the individual mandate is that democrats deliberately wrote the bill without a severability clause. They did that because they felt that the bill was so sweeping that some of it would be acceptable. Without a severability clause, even the acceptable parts would have to do. The court would never go that far. It was a miscalculation, the entire bill must fail because unconstitutional parts cannot be severed out. A second reason was that democrats felt with a severability clause the bill would be dismantled piece by piece over the course of years hampering its implementation.

Suggesting that the Justices read all 2007 pages to find if they can divine a severability clause themselves didn't work.

Does anyone know WHY the justices refused to actually read the bill they are being paid to rule on?

Ahem

From the arguments it sure looks like the mandate part of Obamacare is toast. The question was argued on the last day whether the entire bill or just that part of it should be struck down. Justice Ginsburg argued that striking the entire bill would be a radical exercise in judicial power. Justice Scalia argued that not striking the entire bill would be an exercise in judicial power.
I am inclined to agree with Scalia (surprise). Since so much of the bill hinges on the mandate leaving any part of it would mean essentially the justices deciding what should or shouldn't be the law. Which is really Congress' role. Better to nix the whole thing and let Congress start over.

It is not the courts job to re-write and edit legislation. It is their job to decide if legislation is constitutional or not, if the legislation is not constitutional then the entire bill goes. Once this happens congress has to write a new piece of legislation.

That is how our system works, well how it has worked anyway.

So all they really have to do is read the mandate section, if that part is unconstitutional then the whole bill can be tossed out without having to read the rest.

 

[VaYank5150]

The problem with only striking out the individual mandate is that democrats deliberately wrote the bill without a severability clause. They did that because they felt that the bill was so sweeping that some of it would be acceptable. Without a severability clause, even the acceptable parts would have to do. The court would never go that far. It was a miscalculation, the entire bill must fail because unconstitutional parts cannot be severed out. A second reason was that democrats felt with a severability clause the bill would be dismantled piece by piece over the course of years hampering its implementation.

Suggesting that the Justices read all 2007 pages to find if they can divine a severability clause themselves didn't work.

Does anyone know WHY the justices refused to actually read the bill they are being paid to rule on?

Asked and answered. Cruel and Unusual punishment. This isn't surprising since no one has ever read the bill. We pay legislators who never read the bill before they voted on it. The people who wrote it never read it. It was written in sections, by committee. Those who wrote a section never read the sections written by others.

So, in your humble opinion, the justices can make an informed decision on the Constitutionality of the bill without ever reading it?

 

[Katzndogz]

Does anyone know WHY the justices refused to actually read the bill they are being paid to rule on?

Asked and answered. Cruel and Unusual punishment. This isn't surprising since no one has ever read the bill. We pay legislators who never read the bill before they voted on it. The people who wrote it never read it. It was written in sections, by committee. Those who wrote a section never read the sections written by others.

So, in your humble opinion, the justices can make an informed decision on the Constitutionality of the bill without ever reading it?

It isn't my humble opinion. It's the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Since you missed it the first time around.

Antonin Scalia Compares Reading Affordable Care Act To Cruel And Unusual Punishment

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia joked that reading the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is akin to cruel and unusual punishment.

"What happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to -- to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?" Scalia asked Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler during Wednesday's health care reform hearings.

Reading the whole thing would be futile since if any part of it fails, it all fails because of the deliberate act of not including a severability clause.

 

[VaYank5150]

Asked and answered. Cruel and Unusual punishment. This isn't surprising since no one has ever read the bill. We pay legislators who never read the bill before they voted on it. The people who wrote it never read it. It was written in sections, by committee. Those who wrote a section never read the sections written by others.

So, in your humble opinion, the justices can make an informed decision on the Constitutionality of the bill without ever reading it?

It isn't my humble opinion. It's the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Since you missed it the first time around.

Antonin Scalia Compares Reading Affordable Care Act To Cruel And Unusual Punishment

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia joked that reading the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is akin to cruel and unusual punishment.

"What happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to -- to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?" Scalia asked Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler during Wednesday's health care reform hearings.

Reading the whole thing would be futile since if any part of it fails, it all fails because of the deliberate act of not including a severability clause.

I am not trying to pick a fight with you. I just find it odd that all of the people in our government who are paid handsomely to craft legislation never even bothered to read what they crafted, and then when someone challenged the Constitutionality of the law that was passed by the paid officials who never read it, we are going to pay Supreme Court justices handsomely to rule on it's Constitutionality without ever reading it. Something just seems wrong with all of this to me...

 

[Katzndogz]

So, in your humble opinion, the justices can make an informed decision on the Constitutionality of the bill without ever reading it?

It isn't my humble opinion. It's the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Since you missed it the first time around.

Antonin Scalia Compares Reading Affordable Care Act To Cruel And Unusual Punishment

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia joked that reading the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is akin to cruel and unusual punishment.

"What happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to -- to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?" Scalia asked Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler during Wednesday's health care reform hearings.

Reading the whole thing would be futile since if any part of it fails, it all fails because of the deliberate act of not including a severability clause.

I am not trying to pick a fight with you. I just find it odd that all of the people in our government who are paid handsomely to craft legislation never even bothered to read what they crafted, and then when someone challenged the Constitutionality of the law that was passed by the paid officials who never read it, we are going to pay Supreme Court justices handsomely to rule on it's Constitutionality without ever reading it. Something just seems wrong with all of this to me...

It means the damn thing should never have seen the light of day.

 

[Dragon]

The entire thing should go, and be replaced by a single-payer system.

Which is exactly what will happen eventually. If the Court strikes down the ACA, it will happen sooner.