SCOTUS TO TAKE UP OBAMACARE

[GRUMPY]

well here you have it folks if the court upholds this there literally is no restraint upon govt and nothing that feds cannot compel you to do.....

[Conley]

The Court will hold two hours of argument on the constitutionality of the requirement that virtually every American obtain health insurance by 2014, 90 minutes on whether some or all of the overall law must fail if the mandate is struck down, one hour on whether the Anti-Injunction Act bars some or all of the challenges to the insurance mandate, and one hour on the constitutionality of the expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled.

The Court chose those issues from appeals by the federal government, by 26 states, and by a business trade group. It opted not to review the challenges to new health care coverage requirements for public and private employers. It left untouched petitions by a conservative advocacy group and three of its members and by Liberty University and two of its employees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamacare-reaches-the-supreme-court/2011/11/14/gIQARYA0KN_blog.html

Personally, I disagree with the idea that the government should have the power to require "that virtually every American obtain health insurance".

[Mister D]

This is a nail biter...

[Conley]

It likely will not be presented until March.

[Mister D]

It likely will not be presented until March.


So much rides on it Oh well..

[Conley]

It likely will not be presented until March.


So much rides on it Oh well..


I wonder what the odds on it are. I mean it just doesn't seem to me like it could possibly be ruled constitutional, but I don't know enough about the arguments to say.

[Mister D]

It likely will not be presented until March.


So much rides on it Oh well..


I wonder what the odds on it are. I mean it just doesn't seem to me like it could possibly be ruled constitutional, but I don't know enough about the arguments to say.


I'm thinking no as well but we can only wait and see.

[GRUMPY]

It likely will not be presented until March.


So much rides on it Oh well..


I wonder what the odds on it are. I mean it just doesn't seem to me like it could possibly be ruled constitutional, but I don't know enough about the arguments to say.

it really is not difficult to understand, can the commerce clause be stretched to the point of allowing the fed govt to compel you to buy a product.....a four four split with kennedy to decide.....kagan should but will not recuse herself....the severability aspect of this is interesting given that the govt has argued that without the mandate the whole law is unsupportable.....further, the ability of govt to arbitrarily apply this law should have been considered as well.....

[GRUMPY]

interesting article and the arguments to be heard....

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/15/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-f

[Mister D]

It says the final decision will handed down in June. I'd imagine that a ruling against Obamacare will be a serious blow to his reelection campaign but it will receive quite a boost if it passes.


The government maintains that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to order all Americans to buy health insurance. The plaintiffs in Florida v. HHS and numerous other challenges to the "reform" law assert that even the broadest interpretation of that clause does not permit Congress to regulate "inactivity." In other words, it may allow the government to prevent a citizen from engaging in an "activity" like growing medicinal marijuana, but it cannot possibly authorize Congress to regulate something a citizen is not doing -- like failing to buy insurance.

Scary stuff.

[MMC]

Which also means they will have a decision before the End of Obama's Term.

[GRUMPY]

It says the final decision will handed down in June. I'd imagine that a ruling against Obamacare will be a serious blow to his reelection campaign but it will receive quite a boost if it passes.


The government maintains that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to order all Americans to buy health insurance. The plaintiffs in Florida v. HHS and numerous other challenges to the "reform" law assert that even the broadest interpretation of that clause does not permit Congress to regulate "inactivity." In other words, it may allow the government to prevent a citizen from engaging in an "activity" like growing medicinal marijuana, but it cannot possibly authorize Congress to regulate something a citizen is not doing -- like failing to buy insurance.

Scary stuff.

even more scary is that as this has bounced about in the lower courts the govt has repeatedly been challenged to give an example of what the govt might not be able to compel citizens to purchase given their understanding of the commerce clause.....the govt has had no answer for this query.....this really represents the end of liberty in this nation.....i might say that i found it rather odd still that no one raised a 14th amendment challenge to the undefined/arbitrary waiver aspects of this law as well.....

[Mister D]

It says the final decision will handed down in June. I'd imagine that a ruling against Obamacare will be a serious blow to his reelection campaign but it will receive quite a boost if it passes.


The government maintains that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to order all Americans to buy health insurance. The plaintiffs in Florida v. HHS and numerous other challenges to the "reform" law assert that even the broadest interpretation of that clause does not permit Congress to regulate "inactivity." In other words, it may allow the government to prevent a citizen from engaging in an "activity" like growing medicinal marijuana, but it cannot possibly authorize Congress to regulate something a citizen is not doing -- like failing to buy insurance.

Scary stuff.

even more scary is that as this has bounced about in the lower courts the govt has repeatedly been challenged to give an example of what the govt might not be able to compel citizens to purchase given their understanding of the commerce clause.....the govt has had no answer for this query.....this really represents the end of liberty in this nation.....i might say that i found it rather odd still that no one raised a 14th amendment challenge to the undefined/arbitrary waiver aspects of this law as well.....


If the court rules in the imperial government's favor no doubt you're right.

[Mister D]

Which also means they will have a decision before the End of Obama's Term.


It will definitely impact his reelection campaign.

[GRUMPY]

Which also means they will have a decision before the End of Obama's Term.


It will definitely impact his reelection campaign.

obama attempted to slow walk this and then did an about face, i think they believe they can get this off the table one way or the other.....if the court upholds this law he inspires his base and if not he motivates his base, see we were just one justice short.....this is a 5-4 one way or the other, i would not want to bet on the constitutional fidelity of justice kennedy and kagan will not recuse......

[jgreer]

Which also means they will have a decision before the End of Obama's Term.


It will definitely impact his reelection campaign.

obama attempted to slow walk this and then did an about face, i think they believe they can get this off the table one way or the other.....if the court upholds this law he inspires his base and if not he motivates his base, see we were just one justice short.....this is a 5-4 one way or the other, i would not want to bet on the constitutional fidelity of justice kennedy and kagan will not recuse......


We've got the Supreme Court on our side, and we're going to have it for a long long time. Sorry guys. Well not really sorry LOL Thanks for paying for my health care I appreciate it

[Mister D]

Which also means they will have a decision before the End of Obama's Term.


It will definitely impact his reelection campaign.

obama attempted to slow walk this and then did an about face, i think they believe they can get this off the table one way or the other.....if the court upholds this law he inspires his base and if not he motivates his base, see we were just one justice short.....this is a 5-4 one way or the other, i would not want to bet on the constitutional fidelity of justice kennedy and kagan will not recuse......


We've got the Supreme Court on our side, and we're going to have it for a long long time. Sorry guys. Well not really sorry LOL Thanks for paying for my health care I appreciate it


Quite the fascist you are!

[Conley]

The Supreme Court shouldn't have "sides".

[Mister D]

The Supreme Court shouldn't have "sides".


Exactly.

[GRUMPY]

Which also means they will have a decision before the End of Obama's Term.


It will definitely impact his reelection campaign.

obama attempted to slow walk this and then did an about face, i think they believe they can get this off the table one way or the other.....if the court upholds this law he inspires his base and if not he motivates his base, see we were just one justice short.....this is a 5-4 one way or the other, i would not want to bet on the constitutional fidelity of justice kennedy and kagan will not recuse......


We've got the Supreme Court on our side, and we're going to have it for a long long time. Sorry guys. Well not really sorry LOL Thanks for paying for my health care I appreciate it


Quite the fascist you are!

d, you give fgeer credit where none is due, by this i mean that jgeer has no clue as to what his side is he just anticipates getting something for nothing.....if you asked him whether he believes that justices and elected federal officials should honor their oath of office and exercise fidelity to the constitution jgeer and his ilk would be lost for an answer he doesn't even know what the constitution is.....he desires not liberty and the naturally attached responsibility for ones self, no he desires comfortable serfdom and a kindly master....."a govt big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have"....for the jgeers of this world, now and in the future happiness and fulfillment of ones self are and will be dependent upon having no more than the govt will give them and wanting no more than that which is provided for them....ironic that in this nation's history some 700.000 men died to make men free only to have men desire to be shackled.....

[Conley]

no love for khan lee ??? :'( :D

[Peter1469]

Here are two views:

clearly unconstitutional

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577038232724779286.html


clearly constitutional

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chermerinsky-healthcare-20111115,0,4312764.story

[GRUMPY]

Here are two views:

clearly unconstitutional

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577038232724779286.html


clearly constitutional

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chermerinsky-healthcare-20111115,0,4312764.story

the argument for this is lame.....inactivity is activity because someday most everyone uses healthcare and some cannot afford it.......okay then suppose the govt were to mandate every citizen carry a gun because everyone is subject to the protections of the police and in this way we could substantial reduce the size of police agencies across the country by reducing to pool of victims.....there is no precedent for this and as i stated before if the commerce clause can be used to compel one to buy ins than there exists no limits to what govt can compel the citizens to do.....

[Mister D]

Here are two views:

clearly unconstitutional

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577038232724779286.html


clearly constitutional

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chermerinsky-healthcare-20111115,0,4312764.story

the argument for this is lame.....inactivity is activity because someday most everyone uses healthcare and some cannot afford it.......okay then suppose the govt were to mandate every citizen carry a gun because everyone is subject to the protections of the police and in this way we could substantial reduce the size of police agencies across the country by reducing to pool of victims.....there is no precedent for this and as i stated before if the commerce clause can be used to compel one to buy ins than there exists no limits to what govt can compel the citizens to do.....


Hard to argue with that logic.

[Peter1469]

Here are two views:

clearly unconstitutional

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577038232724779286.html


clearly constitutional

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chermerinsky-healthcare-20111115,0,4312764.story

the argument for this is lame.....inactivity is activity because someday most everyone uses healthcare and some cannot afford it.......okay then suppose the govt were to mandate every citizen carry a gun because everyone is subject to the protections of the police and in this way we could substantial reduce the size of police agencies across the country by reducing to pool of victims.....there is no precedent for this and as i stated before if the commerce clause can be used to compel one to buy ins than there exists no limits to what govt can compel the citizens to do.....



agreed

[Peter1469]

Here are two views:

clearly unconstitutional

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577038232724779286.html


clearly constitutional

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chermerinsky-healthcare-20111115,0,4312764.story

the argument for this is lame.....inactivity is activity because someday most everyone uses healthcare and some cannot afford it.......okay then suppose the govt were to mandate every citizen carry a gun because everyone is subject to the protections of the police and in this way we could substantial reduce the size of police agencies across the country by reducing to pool of victims.....there is no precedent for this and as i stated before if the commerce clause can be used to compel one to buy ins than there exists no limits to what govt can compel the citizens to do.....


Hard to argue with that logic.



The problem is that there is SCOTUS precedent that could be used to rule in favor of this communist piece of legislation.

Will the Court look to our Founders, or will they look to the FDR socialists who changed our government without our permission?

[spunkloaf]

Here are two views:

clearly unconstitutional

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577038232724779286.html


clearly constitutional

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chermerinsky-healthcare-20111115,0,4312764.story

the argument for this is lame.....inactivity is activity because someday most everyone uses healthcare and some cannot afford it.......okay then suppose the govt were to mandate every citizen carry a gun because everyone is subject to the protections of the police and in this way we could substantial reduce the size of police agencies across the country by reducing to pool of victims.....there is no precedent for this and as i stated before if the commerce clause can be used to compel one to buy ins than there exists no limits to what govt can compel the citizens to do.....


Hard to argue with that logic.



The problem is that there is SCOTUS precedent that could be used to rule in favor of this communist piece of legislation.

Will the Court look to our Founders, or will they look to the FDR socialists who changed our government without our permission?





....who the fuck voted them into office???.....

[Peter1469]

That is a very good question.

[MMC]

Obama knew that putting the Clinton Crat Kagan in that it with SCOTUS that it would go down to the wire anyways. Funny that a Kennedy will have the decision resting with him.