Which Justices Will Vote Down ObamaCare? & a Preview of the Arguments to Come.

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Publius1787, Mar 23, 2012.

?

Which Justices Will Vote Aginst the Constitutionality of Obamacare?

  1. John G. Roberts, Jr

    86.7%
  2. Antonin Scalia

    80.0%
  3. Anthony M. Kennedy

    60.0%
  4. Clarence Thomas

    100.0%
  5. Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    6.7%
  6. Stephen G. Breyer

    6.7%
  7. Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr

    93.3%
  8. Sonia Sotomayor

    6.7%
  9. Elena Kagan

    6.7%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    Which Justices Will Vote Aginst the Constitutionality of Obamacare?

    In this poll I ask all of you which justices will vote against the Affordable Care Act? Don’t take the poll too literally. In other words, with respect to the poll lets not get in to the weeds of whether a portion of the Bill will be struck down or the whole thing. Assume a portion of the Bill being struck down is a vote against the act itself as, let’s face it, Obamacare cannot function without the individual mandate.

    Furthermore, I have posted three debates which include some of today’s greatest legal minds, both from the left and the right. For all of you who are curious of how the debates in the Supreme Court will be argued, you can be rest assured that these are the very same arguments that will be presented before the court, and then some. Furthermore, the briefs submitted to the Supreme Court by both sides can be found here.

    The Oyez Project is a website where you can look up all of the past and future Supreme Court cases, listen to the oral arguments, and see how the justices voted. Of course, a few cases are missing as this website is a work in progress. However, you can bet that they will have the oral argument of the Affordable care Act quickly after its release from the Supreme Court. They have quickly done so for all of the other recent cases.

    Finally, and back to the posted media, whether you’re a Liberal or Conservative, these videos will enhance your knowledge of our Constitution and how it is applied to modern jurisprudence. Enjoy!


    SOME OF THESE VIDEOS MAY BE IN PARTS. I haven’t seen them in a while. Each of them are a different debate.
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDwWvGXsPa8]Is Health Care Reform Constitutional? - YouTube[/ame]

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOTLt9KtUG8&feature=relmfu]Debating the Constitutionality of the Federal Health Care Legislation 11-18-10 - YouTube[/ame]

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZvaSrztrY8]Is the Obama Health Care Reform Constitutional? - YouTube[/ame]
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2012
  2. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    I hedged in this thread and said the four most conservative justices would vote to strike it down.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    I can’t find anything in Kennedy’s past to suggest anything but a narrow reading of the commerce clause. He's a famous wildcard and both sides think him to be susceptible to vote the way they prefer. However, he usually votes with conservatives on everything economic and regulatory and with liberals on everything social.
     
  4. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    I agree with your analysis of Kennedy (he's far more conservative than many think he is), but overturning the ACA would roll back a lot of precedent. I still think Gonzales v. Raich is the most important case concerning the current justices' thinking, and Kennedy was part of the majority that upheld the ban (which would be a broader reading). The difference between the ACA case and some of the other commerce clause revival cases (Lopez and Morrison) is that the ACA is addressing a clear interstate commerce issue, while Lopez and Morrison both dealt with Congress passing what was basically general laws and tacking on the commerce clause as a justification of authority.
     
  5. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    I still don’t understand what the comparison is. They were growing pot. They were engaged in, to a certain degree, an economic activity ie commerce. To compel someone to enter in to economic activity, or commerce, would be the equivalent of telling them that they must grow pot, or if you were to use the precedent of Wickard v. Filburn, forcing someone to grow wheat. Thats what the ACA does. It doesent regulate existing commerce but compels it as a condition of citizenship. Of course, I never thought that the federal government had the authority to tell people what drugs they may or may not use or grow, however, such a belief in this day and age is moot from the get go, and thus, has no relevancy for our purposes. What is the core reasoning behind citing these cases and how do the merits of those opinions justify ACA? I cant make it out.

    By the way, Randy Barnett argued Gonzoles v. Raich and is featured in the latter two videos.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2012
  6. LockeJaw
    Offline

    LockeJaw BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,935
    Thanks Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Mesa, Arizona
    Ratings:
    +232
    I notice it's the same two brothers arguing this topic with the most ferocity(all be it civil, I enjoy that). Are both of y'all lawyers? Just curious. You both post the most interesting stuff on this issue.
     
  7. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    The same two? Well I haven’t posted here for over a year but nevertheless I think that we both are excited about the upcoming case. There are legal and SCOTUS junkies out there and you’ve found two of them who are on opposing sides. Unlike most who think that an argument consists of making unjustified claims that contradict the previous statement of the other, I think we have come to the conclusion that properly arguing topic on its merits using factual propositions to support our claims is much more fun and instructive. Nothing can be more of a beautiful sight to a SCOTUS junkie than someone who credibly disagrees with him.

    You will find that the arguments in this forum are not arguments by definition. As I cannot post my favorite argument video from YouTube, I think I have enough videos in this thread at present, I would suggest you look up Monty Pythons Argument Clinic video. Oh, and lawyers don’t have the time to post in a political forum. Although when I was in college I often used online political forums to look up articles for me to cite in papers, heh, heh. This especially helped in my argumentative based research class. If I was a lawyer I suppose I could use the contentious nature here to build an argument.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2012
  8. ladyliberal
    Offline

    ladyliberal Progressive Princess

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,253
    Thanks Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +291
    There are a number of things the court would have to do to strike the law in its entirety

    1) They would have to find that the individual mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law (or that some other part of the law was both unconstitutional and inseverable).
    2) They would have to find that the fine from the individual mandate was not a tax.
    3) They would have to find that despite the essentially universal possibility of needing sudden, expensive treatment that the decision to not arrange in advance to pay for it was less an interstate commercial act than was growing and smoking marijuana (since this court won't strike Raich)
    4) They would have to find that the case was "ripe" even though no one has been fined.

    It's possible that the court could do all these things, but I think they probably won't.
     
  9. Zander
    Online

    Zander Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    Messages:
    17,437
    Thanks Received:
    6,573
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    Los Angeles CA
    Ratings:
    +12,866
    All of 'em. It's bad law.
     
  10. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    Fully supporting my notion that people dont ever read the thread before they comment on it.
     

Share This Page