Supreme Court Bound! Health Care Reform Law Unconstitutional

[RDD_1210]

except for the private insurance role.....

This ruling would apply to social security were it not for the fact that social security isn't brokered thru private insurance companies.

Requiring healthy people to pay too much for care they don't need is a direct subsidy for private industry legislated by the feds: patently unconstitutional.

Maybe you're missing the concept of insurance. You don't buy insurance when a problem comes up. You actually buy it before hand to ensure that you are protected in the event you do get sick. So requiring people to be personally responsible and purchase protection for themselves before a major incident occurs is exercising a little personal responsibility and the very thing the right LOVE to whine about.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I say strike down the mandate. That will throw the insurance companies in to unrest when their "meager" profits shrink and hopefully lead to their downfall. Single-payer, here we come!

Corrupt and bankrupt the system. Good plan Comrade. If we fail here we can always return to Europe.

The system is already corrupt and the people are bankrupt because of it. Glad we all know your priorities lie with the insurance companies over the people. You're a true Patriot!

 

[Intense]

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?

Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.

Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....

The right (unlike the left) is also kind of big on this thing called personal liberty.

LOL, right on cue...yeah, your personal liberty which gets to interfere with mine. How noble.

There is nothing more noble in your position, just an absence of understanding power, and it's limits. It is you who trespass on others.

 

[loosecannon]

I hope I don't see this healthcare bill end up being a tax.

That's exactly what's going to happen. It has been such a bullshit argument: "you're forcing me to buy insurance!!!", "the dang gummint can't make me buy dang insurance!!!!" and it's all semantics. Whether they/us call it a 'purchase' or a 'tax' makes no difference.

The difference is the difference between single payer and forcing citizens to buy insurance from a private company.

 

[Liability]

I dunno. Since other Federal Judges have not reached the same conclusion -- I'd venture the guess that the Supremes are gonna see fit to iron it out after due course.

you know that's more than a guess. they will have to resolve the disparate decisions of the various circuits if they don't agree... and we don't know what the circuit ct in VA is going to decide, either.

When the circuits disagree, the SCOTUS will step in. I think that's fair to say.

And I further agree with you that we don't know what the Circuit Ct. will say about Judge Hudson's decision.

This thing has a way to go before it gets ripe enough for SCOTUS intervention -- unless, perhaps one or more of the Circuit Courts of Appeal issues an injunction against the Act taking effect (in whole or in part). That could serve to speed things up, I'm guessing.

 

[Steerpike]

U.S. Health-Care Law Requirement Thrown Out by Judge - Bloomberg


Now we watch as this moves further up the Court system.

 

[Steerpike]

Nevermind - see the other thread (that I missed): http://www.usmessageboard.com/healthcare-insurance-govt-healthcare/146123-supreme-court-bound.html

Someone close this one

 

[loosecannon]

I dunno. Since other Federal Judges have not reached the same conclusion -- I'd venture the guess that the Supremes are gonna see fit to iron it out after due course.

you know that's more than a guess. they will have to resolve the disparate decisions of the various circuits if they don't agree... and we don't know what the circuit ct in VA is going to decide, either.

When the circuits disagree, the SCOTUS will step in. I think that's fair to say.

And I further agree with you that we don't know what the Circuit Ct. will say about Judge Hudson's decision.

This thing has a way to go before it gets ripe enough for SCOTUS intervention -- unless, perhaps one or more of the Circuit Courts of Appeal issues an injunction against the Act taking effect (in whole or in part). That could serve to speed things up, I'm guessing.

I don't think the states are gonna want to set up exchanges until this is settled. I spose the feds must have anticipated this kind of ruling was inevitable.

Congress could take action as soon as January, and I think they will seize this as an opportunity to gut the bill.

 

[Steerpike]

Let me pull out my crystal ball......

If it goes to the Supreme Court it will lose.......ummm lets see...5-4

I don't know what you mean by lose, but I'm going with Jillian on this one....

If they find against Obamacare, they admit the over-use of the commerce clause, and we may see it tested ad infinitum.

Further, they would be affronting two othe branches of the government, and, actually, letting the Congress off the hook...

No, this is the job of the folks in Congress who claim that they hear the American people. Let's see what they do.

Am I just a pessimist?

I don't agree. The Commerce Clause argument for this mandate is so weak that they can address it without putting much else in jeopardy. The Commerce Clause argument was shot-down for the first time in a long time back in the mid-90s, and that case was probably closer to being legitimate than this one. The purchasing mandate is relatively unique in terms of Commerce Clause case law, so if the Court wants to dispose of it they'll be able to distinguish it with little problem, and then subsequently distinguish future Commerce Clause challenges that try to rely on it.

 

[Steerpike]

Jillian is right though that SCOTUS won't hear this case for some time on down the road. We CAN hold out hope that they will hear it before the worst provisions of the law kick in in 2013 and 2014. That is unless Congress comes to its senses and rescinds it, and then goes to work on putting the good provisions into a package that we all can live with. And this time I hope they make it uniform for all including the unions and members of Congress. We'll all get a much better deal that way.

There is good incentive for them to take it up more quickly. There are a lost of costs at stake, in both the private sector and the public sector, as things move forward. I suspect the Court will intervene at its earliest opportunity because of that fact.

 

[Liability]

you know that's more than a guess. they will have to resolve the disparate decisions of the various circuits if they don't agree... and we don't know what the circuit ct in VA is going to decide, either.

When the circuits disagree, the SCOTUS will step in. I think that's fair to say.

And I further agree with you that we don't know what the Circuit Ct. will say about Judge Hudson's decision.

This thing has a way to go before it gets ripe enough for SCOTUS intervention -- unless, perhaps one or more of the Circuit Courts of Appeal issues an injunction against the Act taking effect (in whole or in part). That could serve to speed things up, I'm guessing.

I don't think the states are gonna want to set up exchanges until this is settled. I spose the feds must have anticipated this kind of ruling was inevitable.

Congress could take action as soon as January, and I think they will seize this as an opportunity to gut the bill.

I'm not sure that, come January, the GOP majority House and the Democrat majority Senate will agree on what to do.

I'm really fine with Grdilock. But that would leave a bit of a thorny and perhaps legislatively unresolvable problem festering. In that event, a conflict in the Circuits, an injunction (stay) and a SCOTUS fast track resolution might be in order.

 

[loosecannon]

Let me pull out my crystal ball......

If it goes to the Supreme Court it will lose.......ummm lets see...5-4

I don't know what you mean by lose, but I'm going with Jillian on this one....

If they find against Obamacare, they admit the over-use of the commerce clause, and we may see it tested ad infinitum.

Further, they would be affronting two othe branches of the government, and, actually, letting the Congress off the hook...

No, this is the job of the folks in Congress who claim that they hear the American people. Let's see what they do.

Am I just a pessimist?

I don't agree. The Commerce Clause argument for this mandate is so weak that they can address it without putting much else in jeopardy. The Commerce Clause argument was shot-down for the first time in a long time back in the mid-90s, and that case was probably closer to being legitimate than this one. The purchasing mandate is relatively unique in terms of Commerce Clause case law, so if the Court wants to dispose of it they'll be able to distinguish it with little problem, and then subsequently distinguish future Commerce Clause challenges that try to rely on it.

exactly, this ruling doesn't change any existing precedent. So it has almost no impact on future rulings.

 

[Intense]

We also need to get past precedent, using logic and reason, there is nothing that is untouchable by virtue of it having already decided on in the past, not when it trespasses the boundary of legitimacy.

it hasn't "tresspasse[d] the bound of legitimacy" if it's been decided by the Court. and while it can be reconsidered, there has to be a basis for a reconsideration.

i doubt the supremes are going to mess with the commerce clause...

no matter what a dubya appointee says.

You believe the commerce clause grants authority to the fed to make people buy things?

Jillian, for you the Court is the Ultimate Authority, above reproach, and that is understandable. I believe in a higher authority than the Court, and through reason and argument, stand up against perceived injustice. The Court will always need to defend it's positions, Jillian, that is just the way things are by design. The wrong mix sitting on that Court, either way, wields unmeasured arbitrary power, that is true, but temporal, and can be reversed on a dime. Amendment is the alternative to blind stubbornness, should reason not prevail. The Founders did error, but they were good on human nature, providing us the tools to dig ourselves out of the holes we dig ourselves into.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?

Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.

Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....

The right (unlike the left) is also kind of big on this thing called personal liberty.

LOL, right on cue...yeah, your personal liberty which gets to interfere with mine. How noble.

No one's interfering with YOUR personal liberty.

you want healthcare?...........Use YOUR personal liberty to go and provide it for yourself.

 

[Meister]

merged

 

[Steerpike]

We also need to get past precedent, using logic and reason, there is nothing that is untouchable by virtue of it having already decided on in the past, not when it trespasses the boundary of legitimacy.

it hasn't "tresspasse[d] the bound of legitimacy" if it's been decided by the Court. and while it can be reconsidered, there has to be a basis for a reconsideration.

i doubt the supremes are going to mess with the commerce clause...

no matter what a dubya appointee says.

The trend has been going to opposite way on the Commerce Clause - toward reigning it in a bit. Started with Lopez. I think if the current court took it up, they'd come down against the mandate. Ruling it Unconstitutional will have little effect on the Commerce Clause generally.

 

[Intense]

Maybe you're missing the concept of insurance. You don't buy insurance when a problem comes up. You actually buy it before hand to ensure that you are protected in the event you do get sick. So requiring people to be personally responsible and purchase protection for themselves before a major incident occurs is exercising a little personal responsibility and the very thing the right LOVE to whine about.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I say strike down the mandate. That will throw the insurance companies in to unrest when their "meager" profits shrink and hopefully lead to their downfall. Single-payer, here we come!

Corrupt and bankrupt the system. Good plan Comrade. If we fail here we can always return to Europe.

The system is already corrupt and the people are bankrupt because of it. Glad we all know your priorities lie with the insurance companies over the people. You're a true Patriot!

Hey, I'm all for confiscating all of Government's toy's and restoring Original intent. That bit about protecting against all enemies, foreign and domestic, with an accent on Corporate and Government injustice as well. Welcome aboard!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills

How about we stop paying their bills then? Why isn't that an option?

 

[Bern80]

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?

Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.

Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....

The right (unlike the left) is also kind of big on this thing called personal liberty.

LOL, right on cue...yeah, your personal liberty which gets to interfere with mine. How noble.

Who says it has to? I don't get what is so different about health care that people think they don't have to pay for service, planned or otherwise. THAT would be a much better way of getting more people health insurance. Make it illegal to not pay for services.

 

[Common Sense]

currently the score is 1-1 for Obama care.

One judge have ruled it constitutional. one has not.

For:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/health/policy/08health.html

Against:
Virginia judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional - CNN.com

Both are Federal Judges and both saw it differently. Hence itll be 2 years before the SCOTUS hears that case and anything is decided.

 

[Steerpike]

currently the score is 1-1 for Obama care.

One judge have ruled it constitutional. one has not.

For:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/health/policy/08health.html

Against:
Virginia judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional - CNN.com

Both are Federal Judges and both saw it differently. Hence itll be 2 years before the SCOTUS hears that case and anything is decided.

Yep. Unless the can fast track it. It would be worth it if they could, either way, because of the money people and States are already putting into it. Would be best to have some clear guidance here.

I do think, though, that the current Court is more likely to come down against the mandate.