Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law

[Unkotare]

A Supreme Court ruling against the abomination that is obamcare, combined with unemployment still over 8% and foreign policy failures all over the place should about put the fork in obama and send him on his way back to Chicago.

 

[Conservative]

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.

The federal government has required all citizens to purchase firearms? link?

 

[Conservative]

Will Justice Kagan recuse herself?

no one can force her if she doesn't.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Ok, you disagree.
Tell us how universal health could function with an "opt out" provision.
Think about it. Obviously the money to run UH would have to be raised through additional taxation. If people were forced to pay up to operate the system why would they opt to seek care outside the system. They would have to pay twice. By design the system would be captive. However, as with all nations that have socialized medicine, it is indeed a captive system. Most of those countries outlaw private care.

 

[BenNatuf]

Will Justice Kagan recuse herself?

Not according to SCOTUSBLOG

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

Is Medicare constitutional?

 

[MeBelle]

Will Justice Kagan recuse herself?

Maybe?

10/19/11
U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle, a Clinton appointee, ironically provided evidence last week that seals the case that Justice Elena Kagan is required by law to recuse herself from cases challenging Obamacare.

The law in question is 28 U.S.C. 455. It mandates that a justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned" or "(w)here he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings ..."

Court Ruling Proves: Kagan Must Recuse | CNSnews.com

 

[Greenbeard]

The law in question is 28 U.S.C. 455.

Interesting.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: [...]

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;​

I hope there's no one like that on the Court!

 

[Navy1960]

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788

I think it interesting that this case has so much in common with many other SCOTUS cases from both sides and these kinds of cases have been decided on both sides. Although in my humble opinion if nothing qualifies as a Bill of Attainder the Federal healthcare mandate in the bill does.

 

[rdean]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with an election-year ruling due by July on the healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.

The decision had been widely expected since late September, when the Obama administration asked the nation's highest court to uphold the centerpiece insurance provision and 26 states separately asked that the entire law be struck down.

The justices in a brief order agreed to hear the appeals. At the heart of the legal battle is whether the Congress overstepped its powers by requiring that all Americans buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty, a provision known as the individual mandate.







Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law - chicagotribune.com

Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance.

Gregory played a clip of Gingrich speaking during an appearance on Meet the Press in October 1993:

“I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.”


Oops.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If Kagan participates, the ‘Kennedy Court’ will vote to uphold; if not, not.

The politics of the issue are of course telling: conservatives want the ACA struck down having nothing to do with the law or facts of the case, but rather because they would cherish a major defeat for Obama. The fact that millions of Americans would again be without insurance – given the fact Congress would be unable or unwilling to pass healthcare reform again – is of no consequence to the right.

 

[Charles_Main]

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

Roe V Wade Was a 5 to 4 split as well. I sure hope Libs are not going to have the Balls to complain about it being such a close split, they had no problem with it for Roe v Wade.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with an election-year ruling due by July on the healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.

The decision had been widely expected since late September, when the Obama administration asked the nation's highest court to uphold the centerpiece insurance provision and 26 states separately asked that the entire law be struck down.

The justices in a brief order agreed to hear the appeals. At the heart of the legal battle is whether the Congress overstepped its powers by requiring that all Americans buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty, a provision known as the individual mandate.







Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law - chicagotribune.com

People should be against this un authorized use of legislation of congress. If they can force people to buy healthcare coverage they can force people to buy anything like guns.

 

[Charles_Main]

If Kagan participates, the ‘Kennedy Court’ will vote to uphold; if not, not.

The politics of the issue are of course telling: conservatives want the ACA struck down having nothing to do with the law or facts of the case, but rather because they would cherish a major defeat for Obama. The fact that millions of Americans would again be without insurance – given the fact Congress would be unable or unwilling to pass healthcare reform again – is of no consequence to the right.

The Individual Mandate will go down. The Rest of the law will likely remain, which will be a problem considering the Entire Law is based on the Idea of the Individual Mandate reducing costs, and generating Funding.

 

[The T]

Will Justice Kagan recuse herself?

Maybe?

10/19/11
U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle, a Clinton appointee, ironically provided evidence last week that seals the case that Justice Elena Kagan is required by law to recuse herself from cases challenging Obamacare.

The law in question is 28 U.S.C. 455. It mandates that a justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned" or "(w)here he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings ..."

Court Ruling Proves: Kagan Must Recuse | CNSnews.com

Thanks for posting that. My post was a bit rhetorical I must admit...I have read a few stories over the past few months that discussed the issue.

Such as this one from the WSJ as it was being discussed before her confirmation to the SCOTUS.

Elena Kagan breezed through her recent confirmation hearings, but there's some crucial unfinished business the Senate should insist on before voting on her nomination to the Supreme Court. To wit, she ought to recuse herself from participating as a Justice in the looming legal challenges to ObamaCare.

In response to Senate queries, Ms. Kagan has said she'll recuse herself from participating in 11 cases on which she represented the government in her current job as Solicitor General. The challenge to ObamaCare isn't one of them, though the cases brought by Florida and 20 other states were filed in March, well before President Obama announced her nomination on May 10.

Ms. Kagan was never asked directly at her hearings about her role as SG regarding the health-care lawsuits. The closest anyone came was this question from Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn: "Was there at any time—and I'm not asking what you expressed or anything else—was there at any time you were asked in your present position to express an opinion on the merits of the health-care bill?"

Ms. Kagan: "There was not."

Regarding a potential recusal, that's not the right question. Ms. Kagan was unlikely to have been consulted on the merits of health-care policy, and even if she did express an opinion on policy this would not be grounds for recusal. The legal precedents on that are clear.

Recusal arises as a matter of judicial ethics if as a government official she expressed an opinion on the merits of the health-care litigation. This is what she would have to render a judgment on were she to be confirmed for the High Court. It is also the question on which she is likely to have participated given her role at the Justice Department

 

[rightwinger]

Looks like 5-4 once again


Will the court go by case law or their individual political leanings? Should be interesting

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with an election-year ruling due by July on the healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.

The decision had been widely expected since late September, when the Obama administration asked the nation's highest court to uphold the centerpiece insurance provision and 26 states separately asked that the entire law be struck down.

The justices in a brief order agreed to hear the appeals. At the heart of the legal battle is whether the Congress overstepped its powers by requiring that all Americans buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty, a provision known as the individual mandate.







Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law - chicagotribune.com

Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance.

Gregory played a clip of Gingrich speaking during an appearance on Meet the Press in October 1993:

“I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.”


Oops.

You should like him deany why don't you give him all your support.

 

[The T]

If Kagan participates, the ‘Kennedy Court’ will vote to uphold; if not, not.

The politics of the issue are of course telling: conservatives want the ACA struck down having nothing to do with the law or facts of the case, but rather because they would cherish a major defeat for Obama. The fact that millions of Americans would again be without insurance – given the fact Congress would be unable or unwilling to pass healthcare reform again – is of no consequence to the right.

The Individual Mandate will go down. The Rest of the law will likely remain, which will be a problem considering the Entire Law is based on the Idea of the Individual Mandate reducing costs, and generating Funding.

Which is effectively taking the wheels off the wagon.

 

[Greenbeard]

The Individual Mandate will go down. The Rest of the law will likely remain, which will be a problem considering the Entire Law is based on the Idea of the Individual Mandate reducing costs, and generating Funding.

No, it's there because of adverse selection.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Looks like 5-4 once again


Will the court go by case law or their individual political leanings? Should be interesting

What case law?