Supreme Court Overturns Obamacare?

[Katzndogz]

When the Justices laugh at the obamalawyer on the first day, it isn't going well for the government.

Obama Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court - Obamacare - Fox Nation

 

[Lumpy 1]

When the Justices laugh at the obamalawyer on the first day, it isn't going well for the government.

Obama Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court - Obamacare - Fox Nation

Interesting .. from you link..

General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax,” said Justice Samuel Alito, in one of the few laugh lines throughout the 90 minutes of argument Monday.

The remark underscores the fine line the White House is walking in its argument. On one hand, it says the backstop is not a tax, because that could subject it to the Anti-Injunction Act — the focal point of Monday’s arguments — and delay a ruling to at least 2015. On the other, they claim that the power to impose a penalty derives from Congress’ broad taxing power. That’s in part because calling it a tax makes defending the mandate easier — Congress’ power to levy taxes is less in question than its power to require people to do things.


Obama Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court - Obamacare - Fox Nation

 

[Vidi]

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...

I think youre absolutely wrong. I think your post is highly partisan. But no it doesnt deserve a neg. Greenies incoming.

 

[Zander]

I see a win/win scenario unfolding for Republicans......

If it is overturned- Obama will lose in a close election. Conservatives will feel that they have stopped a horrible clusterfuck that would ruin the country from being enacted and this will cause many of them to stay home on election day. Liberals will be too busy crying to vote.

If it is not overturned- Obama will lose in a landslide. Conservatives will feel that they MUST STOP a horrible clusterfuck that would ruin the country from being enacted and this will cause them to mobilize on election day. Liberals will be too busy gloating to vote.

 

[sealybobo]

Not a chance they overturn Obamacare. Then what would Republicans run on?

 

[Zander]

Not a chance they overturn Obamacare. Then what would Republicans run on?

Obama's dismal record of failure and broken promises. What else?

 

[Lumpy 1]

Not a chance they overturn Obamacare. Then what would Republicans run on?

Obama's dismal record of failure and broken promises. What else?

.. then there's that ponderous list of lies .. also

 

[Liability]

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

The individual mandate cannot stand as Constitutional under any honest analysis.

It would require us to accept as true that there is effectively no limit on matters what Congress can legislate. The Constitutional notion of "limits" and "enumerated powers" having ANY actual meaning would disappear as some quaint old concept.

It would be the death knell to what the Framers and Founders crafted.

And no. It's not likely to happen. The most alarming part of this is that ANY Supreme Court Justice would even CONSIDER saying "nah. It's ok."

It is not ok.

It is not even just simply "wrong." It is dangerously and fatally wrong.

 

[Liability]

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.

Scalia is not at all likely to accept it. Why would he?

It is antithetical to the actual intendment of the Constitution.

 

[rdean]

Health care for children is "bad". Republicans only care about getting them born. After that, fuck 'em. Fuck 'em good.

Actually, let the little fuckers starve.

Did I get it right?

 

[sealybobo]

Health care for children is "bad". Republicans only care about getting them born. After that, fuck 'em. Fuck 'em good.

Actually, let the little fuckers starve.

Did I get it right?

please read my new thread "7 kinds of republican idiots"

I think you will appreciate it.

 

[sealybobo]

Not a chance they overturn Obamacare. Then what would Republicans run on?

Obama's dismal record of failure and broken promises. What else?

That montra is getting weaker and weaker as the economy continues to get better.

Are you still sticking to the talking point that its not? Because that reminds me of when the economy was crashing right before the 2008 election and McCain and Romney were both saying the fundamentals of our economy were strong, or Michigan was in a one state recession. They couldn't have been more wrong.

So you want to put them back in charge? They didn't even know it when the sky was falling. Obama adding 300K jobs a month, 7 million left on Bush's watch. And you want to go back to Bush's way? Romney/Santorum sound just like Bush to me. Please tell us the difference if there is one.

 

[WillowTree]

Not a chance they overturn Obamacare. Then what would Republicans run on?

Obama's dismal record of failure and broken promises. What else?

That montra is getting weaker and weaker as the economy continues to get better.

Are you still sticking to the talking point that its not? Because that reminds me of when the economy was crashing right before the 2008 election and McCain and Romney were both saying the fundamentals of our economy were strong, or Michigan was in a one state recession. They couldn't have been more wrong.

So you want to put them back in charge? They didn't even know it when the sky was falling. Obama adding 300K jobs a month, 7 million left on Bush's watch. And you want to go back to Bush's way? Romney/Santorum sound just like Bush to me. Please tell us the difference if there is one.

"mantra" you spell it "mantra"

 

[Liability]

Obama's dismal record of failure and broken promises. What else?

That montra is getting weaker and weaker as the economy continues to get better.

Are you still sticking to the talking point that its not? Because that reminds me of when the economy was crashing right before the 2008 election and McCain and Romney were both saying the fundamentals of our economy were strong, or Michigan was in a one state recession. They couldn't have been more wrong.

So you want to put them back in charge? They didn't even know it when the sky was falling. Obama adding 300K jobs a month, 7 million left on Bush's watch. And you want to go back to Bush's way? Romney/Santorum sound just like Bush to me. Please tell us the difference if there is one.

"mantra" you spell it "mantra"

And before pontificating about the economy getting "better," the economy should first start to actually GET better.

 

[Valerie]

U.S. Supreme Court justices voiced skepticism about President Barack Obama's health-care law, hinting they might strike down his biggest domestic achievement just months before the election.

On the second of three days in the historic case, justices' questions over the law's requirement that Americans buy insurance or pay a penalty indicated they might split 5-to-4, with five Republican appointees banding together to topple the law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said the requirement to obtain coverage is telling individuals they "must act." Kennedy, who most often occupies the court's ideological middle ground, said, "That changes the relationship of the government to the individual in a fundamental way."

Justice Samuel Alito called the penalties a "huge subsidy" from young, healthy people who don't want insurance to those who need a lot of health care.

The law would extend coverage to 32 million people and revamp an industry that accounts for 18 percent of the U.S. economy. The court hasn't overturned a measure with such sweeping impact since the 1930s, when it voided parts of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.

The court probably will rule in late June.

Some Justices Question Health Law's Constitutionality - Yahoo! Finance

 

[Pho_King]

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 individual mandate cannot stand as Constitutional under any honest analysis.

It would require us to accept as true that there is effectively no limit on matters what Congress can legislate. The Constitutional notion of "limits" and "enumerated powers" having ANY actual meaning would disappear as some quaint old concept.

It would be the death knell to what the Framers and Founders crafted.

And no. It's not likely to happen. The most alarming part of this is that ANY Supreme Court Justice would even CONSIDER saying "nah. It's ok."

It is not ok.

It is not even just simply "wrong." It is dangerously and fatally wrong.

Unfortunately, there are 7 decades of Commerce Clause jurisprudence to also consider- and that does not bode well for opponents of the mandate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Kagan and Sotomayor will side with Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Scalia striking down Obamacare with prejudice and won't put "respectfully" in their opinion. Kagan will reveal that she did all of Obama's homework in Law School

 

[Liability]

Kagan and Sotomayor will side with Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Scalia striking down Obamacare with prejudice and won't put "respectfully" in their opinion. Kagan will reveal that she did all of Obama's homework in Law School

The President will deny it and ask liberal Democratics to impeach her, to be replaced by three more Justices. He will then deny that he is trying to stack the Court.

 

[Liability]

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 individual mandate cannot stand as Constitutional under any honest analysis.

It would require us to accept as true that there is effectively no limit on matters what Congress can legislate. The Constitutional notion of "limits" and "enumerated powers" having ANY actual meaning would disappear as some quaint old concept.

It would be the death knell to what the Framers and Founders crafted.

And no. It's not likely to happen. The most alarming part of this is that ANY Supreme Court Justice would even CONSIDER saying "nah. It's ok."

It is not ok.

It is not even just simply "wrong." It is dangerously and fatally wrong.

Unfortunately, there are 7 decades of Commerce Clause jurisprudence to also consider- and that does not bode well for opponents of the mandate.

Nonsense.

There is no Commerce Clause Jurisprudential precedent supportive of the facially ridiculous premise that inactivity constitutes commercial activity subject to regulation by the omnipotent limitless Federal Government.

Also, learn how to use the quote function. I had to edit your post to make it read correctly.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama will do an FDR and pack the court then ask them to rehear ObamaCare