Supreme Court Overturns Obamacare?

[Lumpy 1]

What if the Supreme Court ends up overturning Obamacare.. What will it mean politically. Some believe it would cost Obama the election others not so fast.

My point of view is that the American people will come to their senses and dump the failed Obama Presidency either way..

------------------------------

With next week's historic three days of arguments at the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the president's signature health care reform law, hovering over the court proceedings will be the enormous political implications of the case.

With a ruling expected in June, just weeks before the political conventions and the election next Fall, the case has the potential to significantly change the course of the political season, say ABC's Rick Klein and Yahoo! News' David Chalian.

The health care law has never been particularly popular — even when President Obama signed it into law two years ago this month. A poll earlier this week from ABCNews/Washington Post found that 67 percent of Americans believe the high court should either ditch the law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage.

But Democrats don't seem particularly nervous. While the Court striking down the law, or any part of it, would be a black eye for the White House, it would also remove a political albatross from Democrats' necks as they seek to defend the unpopular law in a campaign year.

Republicans are already making political hay of the health care challenge and as the campaign heats up, will surely be dong that even more. A new ad out this week from the Republican National Committee attacks the health care law that the GOP likes to call Obamacare, and airs in six key battleground states.

While all eyes have been on the state by state march toward the GOP nomination of late, the 2012 campaign trail veers decidedly up those famed white marble steps next week where the nine men and women in black robes may eventual cast the most consequential votes of the year.

The Court Case that Could Cost Obama the Election | Power Players - Yahoo! News

 

[Lumpy 1]

 

[zzzz]

What do you want, Obamacare or Romneycare? Hmmmmm....

 

[Valerie]

Not since Bush v. Gore has Washington seen such a scramble for access to ringside views of a Supreme Court case. The high court’s main gallery has about 400 seats for spectators—nowhere near enough for everyone pining to get in after living and breathing the health-care battle these past three years.

D.C.'s Hottest Ticket: The Supreme Court Health-Care Case - Businessweek

 

[code1211]

What do you want, Obamacare or Romneycare? Hmmmmm....

When this whole swindle started out, 83% of americans said they were happy with their insurance.

You can't find 83% of Americans to agree on much. The Little Dictator just had to make his stink rub off on everyone. Before that time, after that time and at that time, the Big 0 has ruled against the will of the people.

The brightest day in the republic's history will be the day he is run out of Washington.

 

[code1211]

Not since Bush v. Gore has Washington seen such a scramble for access to ringside views of a Supreme Court case. The high court’s main gallery has about 400 seats for spectators—nowhere near enough for everyone pining to get in after living and breathing the health-care battle these past three years.

D.C.'s Hottest Ticket: The Supreme Court Health-Care Case - Businessweek

This would be a good one to put on C-Span.

I bet it would get top ratings.

 

[Valerie]

"The individual mandate rests on a claim of federal power that is both unprecedented and unbounded: the power to compel individuals to engage in commerce in order to more effectively to regulate commerce," Paul Clement, a lawyer for the states, argues in court papers.

If Congress can compel individuals into the market place, he says, there are no limits to its power. "Given the breadth of the modern conception of commerce, there is almost no decision that Congress could not label 'economic' and thereby compel under the federal government's theory."

Clement says the law is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause as well as Congress's taxing power. He notes that supporters of the law knew that Congress lacked public support to enact a tax, so it came up with the unprecedented mandate instead.

Clement says there is a reason that the individual mandate is unprecedented: "The only explanation for the utter absence of comparable mandates is the utter absence of constitutional authority to enact them."

Page 2: Supreme Court Health Care Challenge: What You Need to Know - ABC News

 

[NLT]

Court is splt 4 to 4. Justice Kennedey is the wild card.

 

[Trajan]

I heard Richard Epstein provide an analysis of the SC's coming decision on the john batchelor show, he was pretty convincing, I have a lot of respect for his opinion, in short he thinks it will stand...he wrote it up...and I find it hard to fault his logic frankly.



The 'Commerce Clause Mandate' | Hoover Institution

 

[Valerie]

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether the 2010 health reform law is constitutional. At the forefront will be the question of whether Congress has the right, through the commerce clause, to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

Last month, two state attorneys general traveled to Washington, D.C., for a debate on the issue at the National Press Club. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, whose state implemented a precursor to the national health reform law in 2006, argued in favor of the individual mandate. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli -- a national leader in the fight against the law -- said that it impedes freedom of choice and is not within the bounds of federal power. Instead, he insists, it is a measure that states should decide for themselves. Cuccinelli is leading Virginia's health care mandate challenge, which is separate from the case before the Supreme Court this month.

Neither attorney general will argue before the court next week, but their arguments offer a handy cheat sheet of the fight to come. Find a condensed version of their major talking points below.

Should You Have to Buy Health Insurance? 2 Attorneys General Debate | The Rundown News Blog | PBS NewsHour | PBS

 

[Political Junky]

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether the 2010 health reform law is constitutional. At the forefront will be the question of whether Congress has the right, through the commerce clause, to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

Last month, two state attorneys general traveled to Washington, D.C., for a debate on the issue at the National Press Club. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, whose state implemented a precursor to the national health reform law in 2006, argued in favor of the individual mandate. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli -- a national leader in the fight against the law -- said that it impedes freedom of choice and is not within the bounds of federal power. Instead, he insists, it is a measure that states should decide for themselves. Cuccinelli is leading Virginia's health care mandate challenge, which is separate from the case before the Supreme Court this month.

Neither attorney general will argue before the court next week, but their arguments offer a handy cheat sheet of the fight to come. Find a condensed version of their major talking points below.

Should You Have to Buy Health Insurance? 2 Attorneys General Debate | The Rundown News Blog | PBS NewsHour | PBS

Ask the republicans whose idea it was.

 

[Valerie]

Should You Have to Buy Health Insurance? 2 Attorneys General Debate | The Rundown News Blog | PBS NewsHour | PBS

Ask the republicans whose idea it was.

That was a way of sidestepping the approach many Democrats favored: a payroll tax of 5 to 7 percent on businesses that did not offer health coverage. That idea, the subject of a planned ballot question, became the preferred approach of then-House speaker Sal DiMasi. Businesses worried, and with good reason, about the costs such a plan would impose.

DiMasi, however, remained adamant about putting much of the responsibility on business, something both Romney and then-Senate president Robert Travaglini opposed. At one point, DiMasi talked of forcing firms to pay $800 to $1,000 per uncovered employee.

The compromise that finally broke the long stalemate was based on an individual mandate, but called for companies without coverage to pay $295 per worker per year. That was essentially the Romney plan, but with enough of a business contribution to let DiMasi save face. In a move that angered DiMasi, Romney signed the bill, but vetoed the business levy. The Legislature overrode his veto, reimposing the fee.

All in all, then, the role Romney played was of a governor sensitive to business concerns and worried about the state’s business climate. Now, conservatives have come to view that individual mandate as an intolerable imposition on personal liberty, rather than an insistence on personal responsibility. In no small part that’s because such a mandate also plays a central role in Obama’s health care plan. But if they weren’t hyperventilating about the national law, they might come to recognize that the role Romney played on the state level was skillful, creative, and business-friendly.

Celebrating Romney?s true role - Boston.com

RomneyCare - The Truth about Massachusetts Health Care | Mitt Romney Central

Mitt Romney and Healthcare: Romneycare Vs. Obamacare

 

[Lumpy 1]

What if the Supreme Court ends up overturning Obamacare.. What will it mean politically. Some believe it would cost Obama the election others not so fast.

My point of view is that the American people will come to their senses and dump the failed Obama Presidency either way..

------------------------------

With next week's historic three days of arguments at the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the president's signature health care reform law, hovering over the court proceedings will be the enormous political implications of the case.

With a ruling expected in June, just weeks before the political conventions and the election next Fall, the case has the potential to significantly change the course of the political season, say ABC's Rick Klein and Yahoo! News' David Chalian.

The health care law has never been particularly popular — even when President Obama signed it into law two years ago this month. A poll earlier this week from ABCNews/Washington Post found that 67 percent of Americans believe the high court should either ditch the law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage.

But Democrats don't seem particularly nervous. While the Court striking down the law, or any part of it, would be a black eye for the White House, it would also remove a political albatross from Democrats' necks as they seek to defend the unpopular law in a campaign year.

Republicans are already making political hay of the health care challenge and as the campaign heats up, will surely be dong that even more. A new ad out this week from the Republican National Committee attacks the health care law that the GOP likes to call Obamacare, and airs in six key battleground states.

While all eyes have been on the state by state march toward the GOP nomination of late, the 2012 campaign trail veers decidedly up those famed white marble steps next week where the nine men and women in black robes may eventual cast the most consequential votes of the year.

The Court Case that Could Cost Obama the Election | Power Players - Yahoo! News

Do you believe this OP deserves a Neg and an insult as being a Troll..

I'm not whining....I'm just wondering...

 

[Salt Jones]

I heard Richard Epstein provide an analysis of the SC's coming decision on the john batchelor show, he was pretty convincing, I have a lot of respect for his opinion, in short he thinks it will stand...he wrote it up...and I find it hard to fault his logic frankly.



The 'Commerce Clause Mandate' | Hoover Institution

Alito and Scalia will side with the liberals to keep it.

 

[Lumpy 1]

What do you want, Obamacare or Romneycare? Hmmmmm....

Neither...I believe government has and will only make matters worse..

 

[Trajan]

I heard Richard Epstein provide an analysis of the SC's coming decision on the john batchelor show, he was pretty convincing, I have a lot of respect for his opinion, in short he thinks it will stand...he wrote it up...and I find it hard to fault his logic frankly.



The 'Commerce Clause Mandate' | Hoover Institution

Alito and Scalia will side with the liberals to keep it.

scalia very possibly, Alito, I am not so sure.

 

[Lumpy 1]

More on it..

Most people know that the central controversy in the case is the constitutionality of the individual mandate: the rule that forces all Americans to buy health insurance. Never before has the federal government asserted its authority to make people buy a private product, hence the controversy. But there are several other aspects of the law that are up for review.

Monday, 10:00-11:30: Is the mandate a tax or a penalty?

On the first day of oral argument, the Court will deliberate on whether on not the individual mandate is a tax, or a penalty. This is not merely a semantic distinction. As I reviewed in September, the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 requires that a tax already be implemented, and in effect, in order for plaintiffs to have grounds to sue to block it.

In addition, some believe that the mandate would have been more constitutional had it been framed as a tax instead of a penalty. That’s not completely clear—a selective tax on people without health insurance has its own constitutional problems—but it’s true that Obamacare could have achieved its goals more straightforwardly by increasing taxes.

Both parties in this case agree that the mandate is a penalty, not a tax. Nearly every lower court agreed with them. Hence, the Court had to hire a lawyer to argue the other side, that the mandate is a tax.

Why is the Court even bothering to address this? It may be because they want to create some clarity around the distinction of taxes and penalties, to help future Congresses avoid these pitfalls.

Obamacare at the Supreme Court: The Pre-Game Preview - Forbes

 

[Lumpy 1]

a little more

Tuesday, 10:00-12:00: Is the individual mandate constitutional?

Tuesday will be the big day for the individual mandate. Pay close attention to Kennedy, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito, in that order; those are the justices who will decide the outcome of this case.

There are two key questions they will have to address. If Congress can force you to buy private health insurance, what can’t it force you to do? Is there a limiting principle to this idea? Many legal scholars think that Congress can, in fact, do whatever it wants, even requiring you to buy broccoli or regulate mental activity.

The limiting principle that pro-mandate forces have had the most success with is that health care is unique. In the Sixth Circuit, they convinced conservative Judge Jeffrey Sutton that the mandate was okay, just in this instance, because it involves “regulating how citizens pay for [the health care that] they already receive.” In the D.C. Circuit, they convinced conservative judge Laurence Silberman that “the health insurance market is a rather unique one, both because virtually everyone will enter or affect it, and because the uninsured inflict a disproportionate harm on the rest of the market.”

To me, the “health care is unique” argument is preposterous. It was demolished by the Eleventh Circuit, which pointed out that only one percent of national health expenditures is affected by uncompensated care, and that the mandate has numerous exemptions for lower-income people, who will still engage in the practice. In addition, the Constitution does not specify any particular area of the economy for special treatment.

But it doesn’t matter what I think.


Obamacare at the Supreme Court: The Pre-Game Preview - Forbes

 

[Lumpy 1]

just bumping along...

 

[Neotrotsky]

What if the Supreme Court ends up overturning Obamacare.. What will it mean politically. Some believe it would cost Obama the election others not so fast.

My point of view is that the American people will come to their senses and dump the failed Obama Presidency either way..

------------------------------

With next week's historic three days of arguments at the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the president's signature health care reform law, hovering over the court proceedings will be the enormous political implications of the case.

With a ruling expected in June, just weeks before the political conventions and the election next Fall, the case has the potential to significantly change the course of the political season, say ABC's Rick Klein and Yahoo! News' David Chalian.

The health care law has never been particularly popular — even when President Obama signed it into law two years ago this month. A poll earlier this week from ABCNews/Washington Post found that 67 percent of Americans believe the high court should either ditch the law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage.

But Democrats don't seem particularly nervous. While the Court striking down the law, or any part of it, would be a black eye for the White House, it would also remove a political albatross from Democrats' necks as they seek to defend the unpopular law in a campaign year.

Republicans are already making political hay of the health care challenge and as the campaign heats up, will surely be dong that even more. A new ad out this week from the Republican National Committee attacks the health care law that the GOP likes to call Obamacare, and airs in six key battleground states.

While all eyes have been on the state by state march toward the GOP nomination of late, the 2012 campaign trail veers decidedly up those famed white marble steps next week where the nine men and women in black robes may eventual cast the most consequential votes of the year.

The Court Case that Could Cost Obama the Election | Power Players - Yahoo! News

One has to wonder if Papa Obama now realizes that
it might not have been a good idea to try and publicly criticize the SCOTUS
at his State of the Union address. Besides being improper and lacking any class,
it served him no purpose to publicly humiliate them.


Something tells me that his narcissistic personality won't allow him to see
what a stupid idea this was now

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KMKD1Mi8o0]Alito Shakes Head When Obama Criticizes Campaign Finance Decision - YouTube[/ame]