Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law

[MiddleClass]

The U.S Supreme Court will finally put to rest the radical Republican Jihad on Health Care Reform, unless they go by the way of last year's partisan ruling on the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.

 

[Avatar4321]

The U.S Supreme Court will finally put to rest the radical Republican Jihad on Health Care Reform, unless they go by the way of last year's partisan ruling on the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.

Upholding the First Amendment and free speech is partisan now?

What a sad day for our nation.

 

[MiddleClass]

How is a court being activist by upholding the Constitution?

Its when they ignore it and the law and make their own rules that we have activism.

Precisely...

It's amazing, the kind of twists these wingers try and do

Rightwingnuts believe anything that contradicts their fundamental beliefs is Unconstitutional

 

[Avatar4321]

How is a court being activist by upholding the Constitution?

Its when they ignore it and the law and make their own rules that we have activism.

Precisely...

It's amazing, the kind of twists these wingers try and do

Rightwingnuts believe anything that contradicts their fundamental beliefs is Unconstitutional

Considering that our fundamental beliefs include the Constitution of the United States, then, we would be correct.

By definition if something opposes the Constitution it's unconstitional.

 

[Flopper]

I don't think it makes much difference whether the mandate is struck down or not. The mandate is weak because the penalty is quite low. I would guess that if the mandate was struck down, the open enrollment period would be extended and a late fee imposed by the insurance companies. Any shortfall, would have to be made up through higher premiums for preexisting conditions.

If the the mandate is struck down, the political fallout would be much greater than the impact on the law.

 

[Conservative]

The U.S Supreme Court will finally put to rest the radical Republican Jihad on Health Care Reform, unless they go by the way of last year's partisan ruling on the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.

In other words, if they agree with you, they are right... and if they don't they are wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Looks like it'll come down to how one man votes, Kennedy I think. 5-4 split vote is highly likely, one person will make the call.

That isn't really how it should be for something like this. The dems will never agree to this, but they oughta scrap the whole damn thing and do it right this time with enougn bipartisan support to avoid a SCOTUS decision. I suppose that's asking for too much, we don't have enough pols who are willing to make a tough call that's in the best interests of the country rather than what's best for themselves or their party.

Yes...5-4.

But, unfortunately, I believe that it will be 5-4 to uphold.

I believe this based on an originalist view that the Supreme Court is not alone in deciding the constitutionality of a law. Rather, the assumption is that all three branches have a role in said decision.

The Congress is assumed to have viewed any law that they vote in to pass constitutional muster. The same for the President in signing it.
The Court, the third.

So, unless the law is clearly unconstitutional, the law should be upheld.

And....I expect Justices Scalia and Thomas to differ on this, as they did in Gonzales v Raich.


1. Note Justice Thomas’ Madisonian interpretation in his dissent in Gonzales v Raich: “The Necessary and Proper Clause is not a warrant to Congress to enact any law that bears some conceivable connection to the exercise of an enumerated power. Nor is it, however, a command to Congress to enact only laws that are absolutely indispensable to the exercise of an enumerated power. To act under the Necessary and Proper Clause, then, Congress must select a means that is "appropriate" and "plainly adapted" to executing an enumerated power; the means cannot be otherwise "prohibited" by the Constitution; and the means cannot be inconsistent with "the letter and spirit of the [C]onstitution." FindLaw | Cases and Codes

2. Justice Scalia’s interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause
is ‘Rooseveltian” in that it gives extreme deference to the decisions of Congress right down to the necessity to control intrastate, non-economic activities that have been the traditional purview of the police power of states. Similar to the New Deal Court, Justice Scalia allows Congress to decide the question of means-ends fit. Also consistent with a New Deal attitude, he denies that interference with police power of states is an improper construction of implied federal power.

Now, I understand that this is not the Commerce Clause...but it shows the thinking of the two toward Congress' actions.


No....it means that the Republicans must control both the Senate and the White House in 2012 to overthrow this blight.

 

[Ernie S.]

5-4 split vote is highly likely, one person will make the call.

5-4 is just fine with the Libs on Roe vs. Wade. I'll be perfectly satisfied with a 5-4 decision against Obamacare.

I'd love to see 7-2 or better. It would ensure a GOP POTUS.

 

[DaGoose]

Hopefully, they will do the right thing and declare this whole mess unConstitutional and get rid of it forever.

Oh yes!! There's no way we would ever want to force people to take responsibility and buy their own health coverage.

 

[old navy]

5-4??

Should not Kagan recuse herself?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hopefully, they will do the right thing and declare this whole mess unConstitutional and get rid of it forever.

Oh yes!! There's no way we would ever want to force people to take responsibility and buy their own health coverage.

Force.

The usual required element in liberal what-passes-for-thinking.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hopefully, they will do the right thing and declare this whole mess unConstitutional and get rid of it forever.

Oh yes!! There's no way we would ever want to force people to take responsibility and buy their own health coverage.

Force.

The usual required element in liberal what-passes-for-thinking.

Well, atleast they are being more honest about wanting to take our liberty away.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Its all on Kennedy.

You have 4 sane, pro-America justices in Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts and 4 lying radicals who want to disarm us and turn us into a Socialist Utopia like North Korea or Cuba; Kennedy is always a coin flip.

Scalia has hinted that he doesn't want to overturn the legislation. And this would be a second radical step for the court, who's already done some remarkable activist decisions in terms of overturning laws from the state and federal government.

One way or the other..it's going to set the stage for universal health care. And if the courts overturn obamacare..that's going to be sooner rather then later.

"Scalia has hinted that he doesn't want to overturn the legislation."

You have no idea how it galls me to agree with wolf-cubby.

 

[Sallow]

Its all on Kennedy.

You have 4 sane, pro-America justices in Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts and 4 lying radicals who want to disarm us and turn us into a Socialist Utopia like North Korea or Cuba; Kennedy is always a coin flip.

Scalia has hinted that he doesn't want to overturn the legislation. And this would be a second radical step for the court, who's already done some remarkable activist decisions in terms of overturning laws from the state and federal government.

One way or the other..it's going to set the stage for universal health care. And if the courts overturn obamacare..that's going to be sooner rather then later.

"Scalia has hinted that he doesn't want to overturn the legislation."

You have no idea how it galls me to agree with wolf-cubby.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Its all on Kennedy.

You have 4 sane, pro-America justices in Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts and 4 lying radicals who want to disarm us and turn us into a Socialist Utopia like North Korea or Cuba; Kennedy is always a coin flip.

Scalia has hinted that he doesn't want to overturn the legislation.

Link?

See Gonzales v Raich.

Thomas is the true (truest?) conservative.

 

[DaGoose]

Its all on Kennedy.

You have 4 sane, pro-America justices in Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts and 4 lying radicals who want to disarm us and turn us into a Socialist Utopia like North Korea or Cuba; Kennedy is always a coin flip.

Scalia has hinted that he doesn't want to overturn the legislation.

Link?

How Antonin Scalia May Save The Individual Mandate

Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy joined a 6-3 ruling that said Congress could regulate marijuana that was neither bought nor sold on the market but rather grown at home legally for sick patients.

They said the Constitution gave Congress nearly unlimited power to regulate the marketplace as part of its authority “to regulate commerce.”

Even “noneconomic local activity” can come under federal regulation if it is “a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce,” Scalia wrote.

 

[Liability]

Its all on Kennedy.

You have 4 sane, pro-America justices in Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts and 4 lying radicals who want to disarm us and turn us into a Socialist Utopia like North Korea or Cuba; Kennedy is always a coin flip.

Scalia has hinted that he doesn't want to overturn the legislation.

Link?

I was curious, so I did a quick search.

Here's one example. I don't know if it's the one Sallow had in mind:

A Scalia Tea Leaf on the Healthcare Law? - Business Insider

Interesting.

A fine distinction that only constitutional law nerds think about . . . .

-- From the above linked article. We WANT our Federal Judiciary on matters of Constitutional validity to engage in such "nerd" like thinking, I suppose. But I sure as hell don't want them to lose sight of the entire forest on account of a few pesky trees.

 

[grunt11b]

Hopefully, they will do the right thing and declare this whole mess unConstitutional and get rid of it forever.

Obamas reelection hinges on it, which is why it was allowed to go forward. You ever hear of the overton window? This healthcare law played a big part in the overton window. They had no intentions of it ever passing muster in the supreme court, but while everyone was up in arms over it the left quietly moved forward with there agenda. They are probably hoping that if this does not pass the supreme court people will all of a sudden not think things are so bad and reelect them. Don't be fooled, hold these people accountable.

 

[DaGoose]

Hopefully, they will do the right thing and declare this whole mess unConstitutional and get rid of it forever.

Oh yes!! There's no way we would ever want to force people to take responsibility and buy their own health coverage.

Force.

The usual required element in liberal what-passes-for-thinking.

Uh-huh. Because there is no way you new conservatives would EVER force a woman to carry a fetus to full term, force someone to die with no dignity or force families to put off allowing their unrecoverable loved ones to die (Terri Schiavo).

So don't hand me your bullshit on anybody forcing anything.

 

[grunt11b]

Looks like it'll come down to how one man votes, Kennedy I think. 5-4 split vote is highly likely, one person will make the call.

That isn't really how it should be for something like this. The dems will never agree to this, but they oughta scrap the whole damn thing and do it right this time with enougn bipartisan support to avoid a SCOTUS decision. I suppose that's asking for too much, we don't have enough pols who are willing to make a tough call that's in the best interests of the country rather than what's best for themselves or their party.

Don't forget that Kagen has to recuse herself from voting on this, because she was a part of the drafting of this law. So it will be a lock to be voted out.