Supreme Court Overturns Obamacare?

[Liability]

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

And by a slim vote margin of 13 to 12, they eventually will finally uphold it.

On that day, the American people will react by joining del and the dolphins.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

"Let them Die!" Rdean at a Townhall, who them blurted out "I'm one of the 6% of Republicans scientists!!"

 

[Pho_King]

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.

I agree with you on most of those points. But commerce clause jurisprudence generally leans very heavily in favor of federal power. Hell, as far back as Wickard the limits of commerce clause power have been questioned. For 70 years, the government has had the authority to tax/fine individuals for crops grown for personal consumption. And that is what started this mess. I agree with you on the consitutionality. But those constitutional principles you are defending in your posts have been steadily eroded for decades, giving plenty of room for SCOTUS to uphold the mandate.

 

[Liability]

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.

I agree with you on most of those points. But commerce clause jurisprudence generally leans very heavily in favor of federal power. Hell, as far back as Wickard the limits of commerce clause power have been questioned. For 70 years, the government has had the authority to tax/fine individuals for crops grown for personal consumption. And that is what started this mess. I agree with you on the consitutionality. But those constitutional principles you are defending in your posts have been steadily eroded for decades, giving plenty of room for SCOTUS to uphold the mandate.

"[C]ommerce clause jurisprudence generally leans very heavily in favor of federal power." That may be true, but it would SEEM to support Federal Power TO THE EXTENT that it seeks to regulate ACTUAL commerce, not some mythical gibberish version of "commerce" that plainly isn't commerce at all.

Thus, as you noted, even if it involves stretching the meaning of words, a crop grown on a family farm that is never going to enter the stream of commerce has SOME impact on actual commerce. I am having grave doubt that even a creative jurist can use that as a basis to say that individual INACTIVITY can justify the exercise of Federal Power on the ground that "inactivity" has a similar potential impact on commerce. If I choose to buy a particular brand of laundry soap, I am doing an act that involves commerce. If I decide to avoid the use of any such laundry soap, I am NOT doing a damn thing involving commerce.

I ALSO agree with YOU that the principles have been eroded (rather badly) over time. This is one of the cases where it is patently clear how urgent it is to CEASE that erosion.

The Landmark Legal brief notes, quite well, that "the power to regulate commerce
has never been understood to include the power to compel commerce . . . ." http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/11-398bsacLandmarkLegalFoundation_FILED.pdf at page 6.

Levin's organization went on to frame the question much more honestly than the Obama Administration does:

The question for this Court is not whether compelling
an individual to purchase an insurance policy as required by the PPACA is necessary to the successful implementation of the PPACA. Rather, the question is whether it is appropriate and plainly adapted to an enumerated federal power for the federal government to require an individual to purchase a good or service from another individual or private entity
for any private purpose regardless of whether or not that purpose is necessary for carrying into execution a broad federal government program.

Id, at page 12.

Landmark Legal's Amicus brief went on to note:

Here the link between the mandatory individual insurance provision, which creates a sweeping unprecedented
power, and any enumerated power is non-existent.

Id, at p. 15

And finally, as a taxation matter, the law is also invalid for a host of reasons. One of those reasons is expressed clearly in this quote:

The propriety of a tax should
therefore be analyzed within a constitutional framework. It is not enough to conclude that a given tax raises revenue. It must comport with constitutional constraints.

Id at p. 26. The ObamaCare tax does not.

 

[JimH52]

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

Kennedy or Roberts

 

[Pho_King]

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.

I agree with you on most of those points. But commerce clause jurisprudence generally leans very heavily in favor of federal power. Hell, as far back as Wickard the limits of commerce clause power have been questioned. For 70 years, the government has had the authority to tax/fine individuals for crops grown for personal consumption. And that is what started this mess. I agree with you on the consitutionality. But those constitutional principles you are defending in your posts have been steadily eroded for decades, giving plenty of room for SCOTUS to uphold the mandate.

"[C]ommerce clause jurisprudence generally leans very heavily in favor of federal power." That may be true, but it would SEEM to support Federal Power TO THE EXTENT that it seeks to regulate ACTUAL commerce, not some mythical gibberish version of "commerce" that plainly isn't commerce at all.

Thus, as you noted, even if it involves stretching the meaning of words, a crop grown on a family farm that is never going to enter the stream of commerce has SOME impact on actual commerce. I am having grave doubt that even a creative jurist can use that as a basis to say that individual INACTIVITY can justify the exercise of Federal Power on the ground that "inactivity" has a similar potential impact on commerce. If I choose to buy a particular brand of laundry soap, I am doing an act that involves commerce. If I decide to avoid the use of any such laundry soap, I am NOT doing a damn thing involving commerce.

I ALSO agree with YOU that the principles have been eroded (rather badly) over time. This is one of the cases where it is patently clear how urgent it is to CEASE that erosion.

The Landmark Legal brief notes, quite well, that "the power to regulate commerce
has never been understood to include the power to compel commerce . . .
Levin's organization went on to frame the question much more honestly than the Obama Administration does: Id, at page 12.

Landmark Legal's Amicus brief went on to note:

Here the link between the mandatory individual insurance provision, which creates a sweeping unprecedented
power, and any enumerated power is non-existent.

Id, at p. 15

And finally, as a taxation matter, the law is also invalid for a host of reasons. One of those reasons is expressed clearly in this quote:

The propriety of a tax should
therefore be analyzed within a constitutional framework. It is not enough to conclude that a given tax raises revenue. It must comport with constitutional constraints.

Id at p. 26. The ObamaCare tax does not.

You are far more optimistic than I. Its a narrow step from Wickard to here. The farmer was not engaging in interstate commerce in Wickard. But his choice of feeding his family outside of interstate commerce was held to affect interstate commerce. And few decisons since then have done anything to curtail this power. Maybe SCOTUS will see the light. However, I have very grave doubts that they will.

 

[Zander]

I still believe it will be a win/win scenario for Republicans regardless of how the SCOTUS rules. Especially in light of Obama admitting to the Russians that he'll sell out the USA after he is reelected...

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.

 

[Lumpy 1]

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.

The economy magically got better last November, didn't you here..

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

President Obama has done so much more than just the Affordable Care Act. I'm sure you have already read the two links in my sig as well as this link -

http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-common/mlib/12369/03/12369_1331401414.pdf

And, surely you can post links to prove that the GObP/Repubs have done just as much for their country?

No?

I didn't think so. you know why you can't find even one link to Repub accomplishemts? Because they do not DO anything FOR the United States.

Fact is, the pubs don't work for the United States and most Americans know that.

 

[rdean]

"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

The mandate is actually a conservative Republican idea that first came from the Heritage foundation. People going to the emergency room for free raises health care costs for all Americans by at least a thousand dollars per person. Since Congress has the power to guide commerce and health care makes up about a fifth of the economy and since the mandate is a Republican idea, you would think there wouldn't be a problem. In fact, the people of Mitt's state approve of the law by 67%. A percentage this high is usually considered a "mandate".

But the truth here is that we have a black president. And a Republican Party that's 90% white who hate him so much, if he said eating babies was bad, they would insist babies should be on the menu.

 

[Zander]

"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

...

But the truth here is that we have a black president. And a Republican Party that's 90% white who hate him so much, if he said eating babies was bad, they would insist babies should be on the menu.

I do love veal......

 

[Liability]

"mantra" you spell it "mantra"

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

The economy magically got better last November, didn't you here..

I musta forgot.

 

[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

President Obama has done so much more than just the Affordable Care Act. I'm sure you have already read the two links in my sig as well as this link -

http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-common/mlib/12369/03/12369_1331401414.pdf

And, surely you can post links to prove that the GObP/Repubs have done just as much for their country?

No?

I didn't think so. you know why you can't find even one link to Repub accomplishemts? Because they do not DO anything FOR the United States.

Fact is, the pubs don't work for the United States and most Americans know that.

Typically ..I don't read your stuff anymore...just sayin

 

[Katzndogz]

It looks like obama intends to enforce obamacare even if he loses.

IRS seeks 4,000 agents, $303 million for Obamacare | Washington Examiner

 

[GHook93]

The law stands! Yes we are hearing opposition and heavy questioning, but that is only from the conservatives on the court. Only one Justice matters, the true moderate, Kennedy. He is the only swing vote.

Both sides will vote according to their ideology. For the bill, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan and Ginsburg. Against the bill, Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. They already made their decision. Kennedy is all that matters.

Kennedy is the wildcard. I think he will go with the liberals here!

 

[Intense]

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

I think we need to eliminate price gouging and the practice of unnecessary procedures, not to mention fraud, and Crazy Litigation. We need Legislation that promotes fair play, and that protects the Doctor Patient relationship. We need to stop feeding the Beast. How's that Sparky???

 

[Intense]

The law stands! Yes we are hearing opposition and heavy questioning, but that is only from the conservatives on the court. Only one Justice matters, the true moderate, Kennedy. He is the only swing vote.

Both sides will vote according to their ideology. For the bill, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan and Ginsburg. Against the bill, Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. They already made their decision. Kennedy is all that matters.

Kennedy is the wildcard. I think he will go with the liberals here!

Wow, you seem really excited about undermining the Constitution at all costs huh. Funny if your side wins, We All lose. Every one of us. You might get off on realizing that you are the Property of the State, and have no more than token Free Will, but I renounce that. You, Someday, will realize the extent of the damage that you help to bring around.

 

[Intense]

It looks like obama intends to enforce obamacare even if he loses.

IRS seeks 4,000 agents, $303 million for Obamacare | Washington Examiner

Obama Despotism 101.

 

[Sanctions]

You are far more optimistic than I. Its a narrow step from Wickard to here. The farmer was not engaging in interstate commerce in Wickard. But his choice of feeding his family outside of interstate commerce was held to affect interstate commerce. And few decisons since then have done anything to curtail this power. Maybe SCOTUS will see the light. However, I have very grave doubts that they will.

Actually, US v Lopez started the ball rolling the other way, arguing for restirctions on the power and scope of the commerce clause. Morrision and Army Corps of Engineers are subsequent decisions that upheld the line of Lopez arguing that the commerce clause must have limitations as to not obliterate the lines between federal and state power. The more recent decisions over the commerce clause have actually limited government use of the commerce clause power.

As for Filburn, the difference there is that Filburn was already engaged in commerce. He was a farmer by choice, and as such was subject to regulation. What Filburn did not argue is that every american must buy two loaves of wheat every month in order to stabalize the price of wheat. Thats what's being attempted here, which is that every amercian, regardless of their desire or wish, must enroll in the governments health care act.

I don't think by the line of questioning under oral arguments that Justice Kennedy is in support of that idea. He asked what limiting powers there would be in such a world? There really was no answer provided except its unique, which didn't sound very persuasive.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What if the Supreme Court ends up overturning Obamacare.. What will it mean politically.

It means that The Obama's only major legislative success has failed.