Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law

[BenNatuf]

Maybe you should actually read the questions that were granted cert.

-That- would require intellectual honesty.

Intellectual honesty is neither of your suits, kiddos. SCOTUS will only be interested in the interstate commerce interess of Congress, nothing else. Roberts and one other conservative may well vote to uphold the act, making the final decision 6-3 or 7-2.

odd, thats not what the questions that were granted cert say.

let us know when you have actual facts instead of JokeFakey facts.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is a gigantic mistake.
The SCOTUS should NEVER be confused with a television spectacle.
Televised SCOTUS proceedings would be a national tragedy.

 

[Inthemiddle]

This is a gigantic mistake.
The SCOTUS should NEVER be confused with a television spectacle.
Televised SCOTUS proceedings would be a national tragedy.

I'm inclined to agree. Not only that, but I simply can't see anything of actual benefit gained by the public. Interested individuals can read the resulting opinions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

-That- would require intellectual honesty.

Intellectual honesty is neither of your suits, kiddos. SCOTUS will only be interested in the interstate commerce interess of Congress, nothing else. Roberts and one other conservative may well vote to uphold the act, making the final decision 6-3 or 7-2.

odd, thats not what the questions that were granted cert say. let us know when you have actual facts instead of JokeFakey facts.

You are quoting spin that will have nothing to do with the decision on merits itself. Tis what tis. No far right wacks need apply to adult discussion here until you are willing to discuss the facts, not the spin.

 

[Liability]

Intellectual honesty is neither of your suits, kiddos. SCOTUS will only be interested in the interstate commerce interess of Congress, nothing else. Roberts and one other conservative may well vote to uphold the act, making the final decision 6-3 or 7-2.

odd, thats not what the questions that were granted cert say. let us know when you have actual facts instead of JokeFakey facts.

You are quoting spin that will have nothing to do with the decision on merits itself. Tis what tis. No far right wacks need apply to adult discussion here until you are willing to discuss the facts, not the spin.

Please link to the support you surely must have for the proposition you offer that the SCOTUS will decide the case based only on a narrow basis? http://www.usmessageboard.com/4417130-post250.html

Ben cited aca litigation blog as HIS support for the ACTUAL BASIS upon which the SCOTUS granted certiorari. See, also, http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111411zor.pdf

So, what do YOU have to offer, there, Fakey?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The facts, Liability, not the spin. If you are only going to spin, then have the last word. We will move on.

 

[Liability]

The facts, Liability, not the spin. If you are only going to spin, then have the last word. We will move on.

Unlike you, Fakey, I have offered facts AS DID Ben.

By contrast, Fakey, as EVERYONE can plainly see, YOU have offered only your own pathetically shallow mere "opinion."

This explains why you are still DODGING the question: Cite to your source.

YOU made the claim. Or, as you would call it if you were honest enough to apply the words to yourself, YOU provided the "spin."

Only you have done that "spin" thing.

Step up to the plate half as well as Ben did. Stop spinning like a top. Make a FACTUAL assertion and BACK IT UP. CITE to your source. Link it.

But you won't. Why not? Because, as you have established time and time again, you remain nothing but a fraud.

 

[Navy1960]

This is what the SCOTUS will hear..

1. Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program, or does the limitation on Congress‘s spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), no longer apply?
2. May Congress treat States no differently from any other employer when imposing invasive mandates as to the manner in which they provide their own employees with insurance coverage, as suggested by Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), or has Garcia‘s approach been overtaken by subsequent cases in which this Court has explicitly recognized judicially enforceable limits on Congress‘s power to interfere with state sovereignty?
3. Does the Affordable Care Act‘s mandate that virtually every individual obtain health insurance exceed Congress‘s enumerated powers and, if so, to what extent (if any) can the mandate be severed from the remainder of the Act?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PDFs/11-400 Cert Petition.pdf

They also granted cert to one question about whether states were precluded from suig under the tax anti injunction act which I believe came from the 6th circuit decission and could give them a vehicle to punt with.

Here is a comprehensive list of the questions on which the Court granted certiorari this morning:

On severability (90 minutes of argument):

1(a). (From NFIB v. Sebelius) "The question presented is whether the ACA must be invalidated in its entirety because it is nonseverable from the individual mandate that exceeds Congress’ limited and enumerated powers under the Constitution."

1(b). (Question 3 from Florida v. HHS) "[T]o what extent (if any) can the mandate be severed from the remainder of the Act?"

On the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision (2 hours of argument):

2. (From HHS v. Florida) "Whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision."

On the Anti-Injunction Act (1 hour of argument):

3. (Added by the Court in its order this morning) "Whether the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421(a)."


On the constitutionality of the ACA's Medicaid amendments (1 hour of argument):


4. (Question 1 from Florida v. HHS) "Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program, or does the limitation on Congress‘s spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), no longer apply?"

aca litigation blog

they will punt.

I've read both several times, it does seem there are many things about the H.C. bill they are calling into question. This is a huge case in my humble opinion not just in terms of the H.C. Bill itself but on several constitutional issues that have been called into question. The "states" case as I like to call it, makes reference to the San Antonio case quite a bit and if that case is to be revisited then there are 10th Amendment issues there as well as well Article 1 Sec. 8 issues to be resolved, they also cite the Lopez case. In my opinion this case is a landmark case and will have far reaching implications. I personally do not believe this is a narrow case focused on one issue and anyone who reads the cert. will see that almost immediately. It should prove very interesting though as the amount of time of oral arguements should tell people this case is not a narrow case. Frankly, I don't see how the court can throw out the entire H.C. Bill , and do not see that happening, but rather seem them striking down parts of it with a long lengthy decision. Although, when it comes to trying to figure out what this court will do, you run into issues so I will remain an observer.

 

[BenNatuf]

Intellectual honesty is neither of your suits, kiddos. SCOTUS will only be interested in the interstate commerce interess of Congress, nothing else. Roberts and one other conservative may well vote to uphold the act, making the final decision 6-3 or 7-2.

odd, thats not what the questions that were granted cert say. let us know when you have actual facts instead of JokeFakey facts.

You are quoting spin that will have nothing to do with the decision on merits itself. Tis what tis. No far right wacks need apply to adult discussion here until you are willing to discuss the facts, not the spin.

LOL... no dumbass, I'm linking to the actual questions that were granted cert and scheduled for argument.

 

[BenNatuf]

This is what the SCOTUS will hear..

1. Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program, or does the limitation on Congress‘s spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), no longer apply?
2. May Congress treat States no differently from any other employer when imposing invasive mandates as to the manner in which they provide their own employees with insurance coverage, as suggested by Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), or has Garcia‘s approach been overtaken by subsequent cases in which this Court has explicitly recognized judicially enforceable limits on Congress‘s power to interfere with state sovereignty?
3. Does the Affordable Care Act‘s mandate that virtually every individual obtain health insurance exceed Congress‘s enumerated powers and, if so, to what extent (if any) can the mandate be severed from the remainder of the Act?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PDFs/11-400 Cert Petition.pdf

They also granted cert to one question about whether states were precluded from suig under the tax anti injunction act which I believe came from the 6th circuit decission and could give them a vehicle to punt with.

Here is a comprehensive list of the questions on which the Court granted certiorari this morning:

On severability (90 minutes of argument):

1(a). (From NFIB v. Sebelius) "The question presented is whether the ACA must be invalidated in its entirety because it is nonseverable from the individual mandate that exceeds Congress’ limited and enumerated powers under the Constitution."

1(b). (Question 3 from Florida v. HHS) "[T]o what extent (if any) can the mandate be severed from the remainder of the Act?"

On the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision (2 hours of argument):

2. (From HHS v. Florida) "Whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision."

On the Anti-Injunction Act (1 hour of argument):

3. (Added by the Court in its order this morning) "Whether the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421(a)."


On the constitutionality of the ACA's Medicaid amendments (1 hour of argument):


4. (Question 1 from Florida v. HHS) "Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program, or does the limitation on Congress‘s spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), no longer apply?"

aca litigation blog

they will punt.

I've read both several times, it does seem there are many things about the H.C. bill they are calling into question. This is a huge case in my humble opinion not just in terms of the H.C. Bill itself but on several constitutional issues that have been called into question. The "states" case as I like to call it, makes reference to the San Antonio case quite a bit and if that case is to be revisited then there are 10th Amendment issues there as well as well Article 1 Sec. 8 issues to be resolved, they also cite the Lopez case. In my opinion this case is a landmark case and will have far reaching implications. I personally do not believe this is a narrow case focused on one issue and anyone who reads the cert. will see that almost immediately. It should prove very interesting though as the amount of time of oral arguements should tell people this case is not a narrow case. Frankly, I don't see how the court can throw out the entire H.C. Bill , and do not see that happening, but rather seem them striking down parts of it with a long lengthy decision. Although, when it comes to trying to figure out what this court will do, you run into issues so I will remain an observer.

I think they will have a long opinion, and iot will consist of mostly non-binding dicta that clearly implies what the court will do if the law is not amended before 2014. I think that's why the court added the question about the anti-injunction act themselves. It is the courts "punting" vehicle.

I think they will use the two questions on severability to draw a line in the sand that they previously left fuzzy. The court has previously ruled that the congress failure to include a severability clause was not evedence of the congressional will to make a law unseverable. In this case however the congress removed a severability clause from the bill before passage, I believe that will be the line they draw, leaving in tact the proposition that the court may sever laws sans severability clauses based on how the stricken portions effect the rest of the bill if the congress has not rejected a severability clause in passage of the bill. Hinting to the congress at what they must do if they want to salvage any part of the bill; and then apply it to the law which would throw the whole thing out (which they will not do... yet).

I think they could not avoid the question of the mandate if they wanted too... which they probobly did. I have no earthly idea how much they will either restrict or stretch the commerce clause in the decission (which won't be final)

I think the question on Medicaid is the big question as it addresses the fedralist system, and they will use it to draw a clearer fuzzy line on the power of the federal government to coerce states by withholdng the federal portion of spending in unfunded mandates on the states.

I think they will use the anti injunction act to dismiss the case for a lack of standing while the rest of the decission clearly implies that the law will be overturned if unamended when they get it back in 2014. (punt)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Everybody should be against the mandate because once the government tells you that you have to buy something they won't just stop with one thing.

 

[dblack]

Everybody should be against the mandate because once the government tells you that you have to buy something they won't just stop with one thing.

That's a valid concern. But I think a more immediate byproduct of the mandate, and of the overall effort to make government responsible for our health care, will be a tremendous incentive for government to dictate any personal behaviors that might affect our health. I see many of the same people who are now complaining about the loss of freedom imposed by the mandate, happily supporting laws that micro-manage our lives in the name of saving taxpayer money on health care.

Conservatives will go after gays who risk contracting AIDS. Liberals will want to crack down on fatties and smokers. The whole process will be heavily politicized with all manner of minority groups being scapegoated as freeloaders who waste taxpayer money with their unhealthy (or simply unpopular) personal habits.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are entitled to your opinion, BenNatuf, but the case will be decided on the interstate commerce clause, nothing else.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Everybody should be against the mandate because once the government tells you that you have to buy something they won't just stop with one thing.

That's a valid concern. But I think a more immediate byproduct of the mandate, and of the overall effort to make government responsible for our health care, will be a tremendous incentive for government to dictate any personal behaviors that might affect our health. I see many of the same people who are now complaining about the loss of freedom imposed by the mandate, happily supporting laws that micro-manage our lives in the name of saving taxpayer money on health care.

Conservatives will go after gays who risk contracting AIDS. Liberals will want to crack down on fatties and smokers. The whole process will be heavily politicized with all manner of minority groups being scapegoated as freeloaders who waste taxpayer money with their unhealthy (or simply unpopular) personal habits.

I agree

 

[JakeStarkey]

Everybody should be against the mandate because once the government tells you that you have to buy something they won't just stop with one thing.

That's a valid concern. But I think a more immediate byproduct of the mandate, and of the overall effort to make government responsible for our health care, will be a tremendous incentive for government to dictate any personal behaviors that might affect our health. I see many of the same people who are now complaining about the loss of freedom imposed by the mandate, happily supporting laws that micro-manage our lives in the name of saving taxpayer money on health care.

Conservatives will go after gays who risk contracting AIDS. Liberals will want to crack down on fatties and smokers. The whole process will be heavily politicized with all manner of minority groups being scapegoated as freeloaders who waste taxpayer money with their unhealthy (or simply unpopular) personal habits.

I agree

All of which makes health care in Europe much less expensive leading to the better health and longetivity of Europeans in national health care.

Thanks, guys.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's a valid concern. But I think a more immediate byproduct of the mandate, and of the overall effort to make government responsible for our health care, will be a tremendous incentive for government to dictate any personal behaviors that might affect our health. I see many of the same people who are now complaining about the loss of freedom imposed by the mandate, happily supporting laws that micro-manage our lives in the name of saving taxpayer money on health care.

Conservatives will go after gays who risk contracting AIDS. Liberals will want to crack down on fatties and smokers. The whole process will be heavily politicized with all manner of minority groups being scapegoated as freeloaders who waste taxpayer money with their unhealthy (or simply unpopular) personal habits.

I agree

All of which makes health care in Europe much less expensive leading to the better health and longetivity of Europeans in national health care.

Thanks, guys.

Maybe you didn't get the memo
1. this is America we have individual rights to pick and choose what we want to do no matter if it's unhealthy.
2. Europe is going broke
3. If you want affordable healthcare that you claim Europe has move there.

 

[Liability]

You are entitled to your opinion, BenNatuf, but the case will be decided on the interstate commerce clause, nothing else.

In other words, Fakey has ZERO support for his now repeated mere expression of opinion.

It would have been more honest to just admit it.

But, alas, Fakey is simply not comfortable with being honest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree

All of which makes health care in Europe much less expensive leading to the better health and longetivity of Europeans in national health care.

Thanks, guys.

Maybe you didn't get the memo
1. this is America we have individual rights to pick and choose what we want to do no matter if it's unhealthy.
2. Europe is going broke
3. If you want affordable healthcare that you claim Europe has move there.

Not becasue of improved, cheaper health care, you silly. You still don't get to be the dictator here, or your few friends. 'sides, I have VA 100% because I served protecting your freedoms. I accept your thanks for my service. I also pay boodles in federal income tax as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are entitled to your opinion, BenNatuf, but the case will be decided on the interstate commerce clause, nothing else.

In other words, Fakey has ZERO support for his now repeated mere expression of opinion.

It would have been more honest to just admit it.

But, alas, Fakey is simply not comfortable with being honest.

There is nothing to discuss of merit of your whinging, guys. The merits of Congressional right to control interstate commerce. That's what it will be.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In other words, Fakey has ZERO support for his now repeated mere expression of opinion.

It would have been more honest to just admit it.

But, alas, Fakey is simply not comfortable with being honest.

None of this is new.