Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law

[thereisnospoon]

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.

I don't care where you got your information from.
Universal Healthcare in this country is not going to happen. Period.
It's not possible for the federal government to insure 320 million people. Also, universal health insurance would require a captive market where privately funded insurance or direct pay to medical professionals must be outlawed.
That will no doubt not stand up to Constitutional muster.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I certainly don't mind you dodging the original question...many do.

I'm not trying to dodge the question at all. But I don't really understand what you're trying to get at or ask exactly, or how the death penalty exactly applies to my previous comment. So I gave you a general summary of where I stand on the death penalty.

But the line that I object to is the one above when used as an excuse not to apply the mandated of government.

I don't understand this either. What mandate of government are you talking about?

1. Studies have shown "...each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year....The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place."
Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com


2. And, of course, with far less significance at stake, such as saving gasoline, 2000 innocent are sacrificed.
"Back in 2002, the National Academy of Sciences did a study on the effects of CAFE. They found that over the three decades CAFE has been in effect, downsizing of cars and trucks for fuel economy has cost us about 2,000 lives per year."
PJ Media » The Hidden Death Toll of Higher CAFE Standards

Now, none of that justifies the government executing innocent people.

So, forgive me if I laugh out loud at "Even one innocent person put to death for a crime he/she did not commit is one too many,..."

Laugh? You consider it funny that the government has the power to execute innocent people, but not the accountability and safeguards in place to prevent it from making the mistake of executing innocent people?

Man up.

And alas, you finish it off with an ad hominem, which suggests to me that you never had anything to begin with and were never looking for anything more than an excuse to throw a hissy fit.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Also, universal health insurance would require a captive market where privately funded insurance or direct pay to medical professionals must be outlawed.

I don't think that would be necessary. Coverage from the government does not preempt one from having additional, private coverage. It just reduces the demand for private coverage.

That will no doubt not stand up to Constitutional muster.

I disagree with that too. Even if private insurance were outlawed completely, it would be valid under the commerce clause IMO, just like the sale of illicit drugs is a valid prohibition under the constitution.

 

[dblack]

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....

The amount of support a law has is a completely separate issue from whether or not it's constitutional.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The amount of support a law has is a completely separate issue from whether or not it's constitutional.

True. But it might suffice to prevent such a law from end up being challenged in court.

 

[dblack]

... it'll be a 5-4 to uphold. It shouldn't be, but I'm thinking it will. That isn't necessarily bad for the GOP though. A 5-4 Uphold ruling would motivate the base big time as the Mandate is pretty unpopular on both sides of the aisle. I could see a 5-4 ruling to support the Mandate being a pretty effective October surprise if they hold the decision.

The question is, is it good (or bad) for the nation. I could care less about the political fortunes of the Republican party.

 

[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.

I don't care where you got your information from.
Universal Healthcare in this country is not going to happen. Period.
It's not possible for the federal government to insure 320 million people. Also, universal health insurance would require a captive market where privately funded insurance or direct pay to medical professionals must be outlawed.
That will no doubt not stand up to Constitutional muster.

Yeah..it will.

And yes it is.

If it's possible for this country to destroy the world 25 times over..surely it can save it just about the same amount.

 

[dblack]

The amount of support a law has is a completely separate issue from whether or not it's constitutional.

True. But it might suffice to prevent such a law from end up being challenged in court.

Maybe. But all it takes is one viable challenge, regardless of a law's popularity. And I still have some hope that the court understand this, that they understand that constitutional limits are there specifically to protect those not in the majority.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you believe the federal government has the blanket power to make you buy health insurance, then you must also believe the federal government has the power to make you buy a gun.

 

[dblack]

You might have a point here. Many were hoping for universal health care..not this. But that position might soften once it's rolled out completely. I mean, I don't like it, but the fact that you can't get kicked for a pre-existing condition makes the indivdual mandate worth the bother.

What about that fact that you can't escape? That you're mandated to suck on whatever the corporate insurance companies and their state sponsors choose to 'offer' you, no matter how overpriced or worthless it turns out to be?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

But will then tell you that 5-4 in Bush v Gore is hogwash.

 

[Liability]

"Force a woman" to carry her fetus to full term as opposed to blithely "allowing" her to kill an innocent?

Force a person to die with no dignity? As opposed to what? What is the death with dignity thing you are commenting on? Assisted suicide, perhaps?

And as for the Terri Schiavo case, lots of conservatives disagreed with lots of other conservatives. The point was that it was NOT all that clear that Terri WAS actually beyond all hope. I kind of imagine she was. But there was other evidence and it's kind of "ok" not to presume that we know more about the marvels of the human brain than we actually DO know.

The POINT of the liberal position (on this health care issue) is that the GOVERNMENT purports now to have the Constitutional authority to TELL us what we MUST buy -- as long as it's for our own good. And yes. It IS a matter of compulsion. And yes, it is a very dubious authority that the libs lay claim to.

"The point was that it was NOT all that clear that Terri WAS actually beyond all hope."

1. "A car crash victim has spoken of the horror he endured for 23 years after he was misdiagnosed as being in a coma when he was conscious the whole time.
Rom Houben, trapped in his paralysed body after a car crash, described his real-life nightmare as he screamed to doctors that he could hear them - but could make no sound.
'I screamed, but there was nothing to hear,' said Mr Houben, now 46, who doctors thought was in a persistent vegatative state.
'I dreamed myself away,' he added, tapping his tale out with the aid of a computer."

Read more: Rom Houben: Patient trapped in a 23-year 'coma' was conscious all along | Mail Online

2. An Arkansas man who went into a coma after a serious car crash during his late teens has awoken nearly two decades later as a middle-aged man with an adult daughter.

Terry Wallis was 19 and newly married with a baby daughter when his truck plunged through a guard rail, falling 25 feet.

He was left paralysed and in a coma by the crash in the summer of 1984. One of his companions was killed outright.

He remained outwardly unresponsive for years, and news reports yesterday described his recovery as all the more remarkable because Mr Wallis was never given specialist care.

His father, a farmer, was reportedly too poor to afford a neurological examination and state medical insurance was reluctant to pay for a man not expected to return to the work force.

But, according to the popular legend now taking root which promises to turn Mr Wallis into a hero for the pro-life movement, the family never gave up hope. Brain Injury | Buzzle.com

Soooo.....you and Liability are in the column that you want government intervention to come in between what is supposed to be a familiy's decision?

And if it were your mother, father, grandparent lying there on life support (God forbid) and his or her doctor(s) assure you that there was no hope of recovery you would want to have to petition the government to make that decision for you????

Sooooo .... That's nothing like anything I said.

Sooooo .... is that a deliberate mis-statement you just made or just a reflection of your reading comprehension problem?

Let's turn it around, just a small bit:

If you got injured and were like Mr. Houben, looking for all the world like you were in a vegetative state, would you want the government to shrug its massive shoulders and say "ah fuck it, preservation of life aint none of our bidness" and allow the family to off you? Actually, that might be your preference. But as for me, and maybe Mr. Houben, I sure wouldn't mind having the government step in to verify (to the extent science has that ability at present) that I really was "gone" as opposed to having been mis-diagnosed.

 

[Inthemiddle]

then you must also believe the federal government has the power to make you buy a gun.

It does. And it's done it before.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I certainly don't mind you dodging the original question...many do.

I'm not trying to dodge the question at all. But I don't really understand what you're trying to get at or ask exactly, or how the death penalty exactly applies to my previous comment. So I gave you a general summary of where I stand on the death penalty.

But the line that I object to is the one above when used as an excuse not to apply the mandated of government.

I don't understand this either. What mandate of government are you talking about?



Now, none of that justifies the government executing innocent people.

So, forgive me if I laugh out loud at "Even one innocent person put to death for a crime he/she did not commit is one too many,..."

Laugh? You consider it funny that the government has the power to execute innocent people, but not the accountability and safeguards in place to prevent it from making the mistake of executing innocent people?

Man up.

And alas, you finish it off with an ad hominem, which suggests to me that you never had anything to begin with and were never looking for anything more than an excuse to throw a hissy fit.

"I don't understand this either. What mandate of government are you talking about?"
To protect its people. And that implies innocent people.

"You consider it funny that the government has the power to execute innocent people, but not the accountability and safeguards in place to prevent it from making the mistake of executing innocent people?"
Are you pretending, here?
I've provided evidence that thousands are condemned to death in the name of better gas mileage, and you, with a shrug of your shoulders, feign outrage that the judicial system may not be 100% perfect.

Rather than an electric chair to take care of the condemned, I propose an electric sofa so we can take care of six at a time.

"government has the power to execute innocent people"
No, guilty people within the parameters of human expertise, you pantywaist.


"And alas, you finish it off with an ad hominem,..."
Everybody needs a hobby.

OK, you can go back to the meeting of the Low-T Society.

 

[Sallow]

If you believe the federal government has the blanket power to make you buy health insurance, then you must also believe the federal government has the power to make you buy a gun.

At one point it did. The second amendment was an "evolution" of that..

 

[Seawytch]

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

Link?

See Gonzales v Raich.

Thomas is the true (truest?) conservative.

You got it right. Scalia is no guarantee to vote against the mandate.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/how-antonin-scalia-may-save-the-individual-mandate/

 

[Seawytch]

Having the mandate thrown out might not be the worse thing to happen to the ACA...especially if it leads to us getting a public option.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The former New York lieutenant governor predicted a split court, with a 5-4 majority in favor of striking down the law’s requirement for nearly everyone to take out health insurance.

The decision probably will rest on whether the court accepts a ruling from the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that around half the nation does not use any healthcare.

“The Obama administration lawyers have said mandatory insurance is necessary for free riders — the people who go to the hospital and do not pay for it,” McCaughey in an exclusive interview with Newsmax. “They argued again and again that the need for healthcare is universal and inevitable, that everyone is involved in healthcare commerce and this law regulates how they pay for it.


http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/...e/2011/11/14/id/417976?s=al&promo_code=D821-1

 

[BenNatuf]

hmmmm... gonna have to do a little research, i've seen a list of the questions they took for cert and I think seeing which cases they came from would be sort of telling. For instance, I know they took the severability question, which I believe would indicate they plan on drawing a line on a courts ability to sever... since they currently don't have a functional one. Would seem to be a point for the non-severability argument... otherwise, why hear it.

They also took one on whether only the states would be precluded from suing via the the anti-injunction act, i believe thats from the sebelius case (6th circuit?). Standing issue i believe that the 6th used to punt.

Also on the mandate itself, which they couldn't avoid if they wanted to

and on the medicaid expansion which I find interesting as it's question is about federal "persuasion" to force states to follow federal mandates on pain of poverty.

I'm thinking this looks good on its face.

You're right, it does look good on its face. But anything can happen between now and then. They shouldnt be hearing any questions, the people shouldnt have allowed this to pass.

interesting read here.

The Court’s agenda on health care : SCOTUSblog

as an aside it mentions all nine justices will sit for the case. Apparently kagan believes the lefts hissy fit will cover her lack of integrity. Which of course is all it was ever intended to do.

based on the questions they took, I predict they will punt, with the caveat that it will be clear in the dicta that when the ball gets thrown back at them in 2014 they will overturn if the law is not ammended.

On severability... will they draw the line bolder and accept that when the congress removes a severability clause from a bill that at least is evedence of thier intent that the law should not be severable? or will they do a power grab and declare whatever actions the congress may or may not have taken are moot and that it is they who determine severability? I'm thinking the former, but I don't put much past the black robed tyrant branch, expanding their own jurisdiction and ignoring the limits on it imposed by the congress seems to be a sport for them.

On whether the anti injunction act applies to states... could be purely a power grab for the courts as finding it does would preclude states from suing the federal government for redress of greivances on any issue involving any federal tax question (maybe even just tangentially). It would also be the vehicle that allows them to punt until 2014 in the hope that thier clear message that they will overturn the law the next time it comes to them prompts revision.

On the mandate... they will say its unconstituional, why else even bother with the severability argument.

On the medicaid expansion, I see absolutely no reason for them to give cert to that question except to slap down the federal argument and agree with the states about federal coersion. If they intended to not do so, why even take the question? The 111th circuit already sided with the feds on that one and they could have just ignored it and let it stand without adressing it.

But I predict they will do all that in dicta, and dismiss the case based on the "standing" issue for the states and the "injunction act" which demands that you have to actually pay the tax before you can sue. (punt)

 

[The T]

Will Justice Kagan recuse herself?