Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Holder and DOJ hoping Justice Scalia will rule ObamaCare Constitutional
Coach is Right ^ | 3/24/2012 | Doug Book

Posted on 03/24/2012 9:43:14 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax

On Monday oral arguments will begin for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a case which will demand arguably the most important ruling the Supreme Court will make in a century.

And the Court’s decision on the Constitutionality of ObamaCare’s individual mandate will indeed be that important, for a finding that it is Constitutional and may therefore be implemented would provide the federal government unlimited, dictatorial power over the lives and actions of the American people.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found the individual mandate unconstitutional, ruling quite correctly that the Article I, Section 8 Commerce Clause powers of Congress upon which Obama’s handlers had depended for the authority to force certain Americans to purchase unwanted healthcare did NOT provide such authority after all. (1)

And as the argument made by the 11th Circuit in its 305 page decision was brilliant and almost certain to influence the thinking of the 5 members of the Court who still believe the United States Constitution rather than the Little Red Book to represent the law of the land, Obama’s Department of Justice lawyers were forced to invent a new method for allocating Congress the power necessary to impose the mandate.

The non-existent “penumbras” magically created by the Burger Court to justify Roe v Wade were not likely to work this time.

So DOJ attorneys have decided to apply the “necessary and proper” clause which provides congress the authority to make all laws “necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers of congress,” such as the power to regulate commerce! (2)

The DOJ took this tack because in 2005, Justices Scalia and Kennedy sided with the Court’s Marxist left in deciding the...

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Health/Medicine; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: antoninscalia; obama; obamacare; supremecourt

1 posted on 03/24/2012 9:43:21 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

I wondered why he was at the last Party at the White Hut.....with all the Celebrity/Hollywood/Donor usual Guests?


2 posted on 03/24/2012 9:49:40 AM PDT by traditional1 (Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Holder and DOJ are in state of delusion and denial.


3 posted on 03/24/2012 9:50:09 AM PDT by DarthVader (Politicians govern out of self interest, Statesmen govern for a Vision greater than themselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

I wondered why he was at the last Party at the White Hut.....with all the Celebrity/Hollywood/Donor usual Guests?


That’s not a good sign.


4 posted on 03/24/2012 9:55:34 AM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

If scalia did rule in favor of ObamaCare - it would destroy his entire legacy forever.


5 posted on 03/24/2012 9:57:12 AM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

It’s called rope-a-dope.


6 posted on 03/24/2012 10:01:03 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
Elena Kagan must be forced to recuse herself!

My God.

She WROTE Obamacare.

There is NO DISPUTING this fact.

Justice Thurgood Marshall recused himself from a Supreme Court decision regarding a meat company because he said "I like their ham."

Why, in the name of all that is decent, is this woman being allowed to rule on this decision?

7 posted on 03/24/2012 10:05:40 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

If scalia did rule in favor of ObamaCare - it would destroy his entire legacy forever.


I’m confident he will do the right thing. But it’s all scary.


8 posted on 03/24/2012 10:06:14 AM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

No, the ruling will just solidify Scalia’s belief that the Commerce Clause is originally intended to control all aspects of “commerce” by the Federal government over the individual’s rights.


9 posted on 03/24/2012 10:07:41 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Elena KegFace!!


10 posted on 03/24/2012 10:09:02 AM PDT by DarthVader (Politicians govern out of self interest, Statesmen govern for a Vision greater than themselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

Regulating commerce is not in dispute.

OBAMACARE COMPELS COMMERCE BY FORCE!

And what about the hundreds of years of basic contract law to where an individual must have what is known as consent and mutual assent to enter into a contract?

The entire premise behind the mandate is absurd!


11 posted on 03/24/2012 10:10:04 AM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

Read up on Scalia’s past decisions when the commerce clause became part of the issue. For kicks, study Scalia’s work before he was appointed to be a SC Justice. In short, Scalia is a radical when it comes to the expansion of the commerce clause, yes, even when the individual is compelled.

Just saying his “vote” is not entirely with the Unconstitutional crowd, although it MIGHT be. We will see.


12 posted on 03/24/2012 10:19:15 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Thanks for posting that disgusting picture of toe sucker Dickie Morris in drag!


13 posted on 03/24/2012 10:22:43 AM PDT by Noob1999 (Loose Lips, Sink Ships)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
Why, in the name of all that is decent, is this woman being allowed to rule on this decision?

I'm sorry, SkyPilot, but decency was a long time ago. Indecency has prevailed.

In full seriousness: the only thing government consistently does well is look after the interests of government.

14 posted on 03/24/2012 10:26:21 AM PDT by Standing Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Standing Wolf

In full seriousness: the only thing government consistently does well is look after the interests of government.


Well said. Sickening, isn’t it.


15 posted on 03/24/2012 10:40:44 AM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

I understand that - but granting the govt this power literally is the end of this nation as the government will be able to force you literally to purchase anything at any price for whatever stupid reason it comes up with with no recourse!!!!


16 posted on 03/24/2012 10:50:29 AM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

“So DOJ attorneys have decided to apply the “necessary and proper” clause which provides congress the authority to make all laws “necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers of congress,” such as the power to regulate commerce!”

If no commerce was engaged in by Americans there is no necessary and proper clause application. Furthermore...congress does not have the enumerated power to compel us to purchase anything.


17 posted on 03/24/2012 11:04:36 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather ("We Need To Teach The Establishment a Lesson" - Newt Gingrich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

I worry most about Justice Kennedy .


18 posted on 03/24/2012 11:04:52 AM PDT by Lionheartusa1 (-: Socialism is the equal distribution of misery :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/the-obamacare-challenge-the-questions-before-the-supreme-court-and-their-portents-for-congress

The Obamacare Challenge: The Questions Before the Supreme Court and Their Portents for CongressBy Robert Alt and Edmund Haislmaier
March 22, 2012

(excerpt)

The Justice Department’s attempt to use this error to arrogate unto Congress the constitutional authority to enact the law—i.e., arguing that the mandate is somehow “necessary and proper” to avoid the negative effects that might otherwise flow from the operation of the community-rating and guaranteed-issue requirements—is constitutional hubris on stilts. The Necessary and Proper Clause, when utilized in conjunction with the Commerce Clause, permits laws carrying into execution Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce. It does not give Congress license to blunder boldly so that it can lay claim to greater authority to “fix” the problem it created. And to satisfy the Necessary and Proper Clause, even where the law is legitimately carrying into execution Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce (which the PPACA does not), the law must still be proper—that is, constistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The PPACA, which admits to no limiting principle and which is inconsistent with any reasonable conception of limited and enumerated powers, clearly fails this test.


19 posted on 03/24/2012 11:17:27 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather ("We Need To Teach The Establishment a Lesson" - Newt Gingrich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote
Two appeals court justices, both friends of Scalia, cited his opinion in Raich to uphold Obamacare:

Both Silberman and Sutton cited Scalia’s opinion in 2005 upholding strict federal regulation of marijuana in the case of Angel Raich, a Californian who used home-grown marijuana to relieve her pain. “If Congress could regulate Angel Raich when she grew marijuana on her property for self-consumption,” Sutton wrote, “it is difficult to say Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.”

http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?a=rp&m=b&postId=1165037.

20 posted on 03/24/2012 11:56:02 AM PDT by Ken H (Austerity is the irresistible force. Entitlements are the immovable object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather
If no commerce was engaged in by Americans there is no necessary and proper clause application Furthermore...congress does not have the enumerated power to compel us to purchase anything.

Maybe Scalia will see it that way, maybe not...

...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

Scalia concurring in Raich

21 posted on 03/24/2012 12:03:19 PM PDT by Ken H (Austerity is the irresistible force. Entitlements are the immovable object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Two appeals court justices, both friends of Scalia, cited his opinion in Raich to uphold Obamacare:

But the Raich ruling did not enable congress to RULE the American public.Will this matter to Scalia? We sure better HOPE so.


22 posted on 03/24/2012 2:18:32 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

“such as the power to regulate commerce”

What commerce? Not engaging in commerce cannot itself be commerce.


23 posted on 03/24/2012 7:29:56 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

“Scalia is a radical when it comes to the expansion of the commerce clause, yes, even when the individual is compelled”

I don’t know about that last part. Certainly Scalia believes in a post-New Deal commerce clause. However, the marijuana case everyone’s been harping about is not strictly analogous to the Obamacare case. Growing dope for personal consumption may not be commerce, much less interstate commerce, but at least it is an overt action. Therefore, it may fall under Wickard v. Filburn, as awful as that precedent is.

Wickard’s standard is that the feds can pass and enforce laws covering actions that affect interstate commerce, whether or not said actions are interstate or commercial. Obamacare’s mandate does not regulate non-commercial activity impinging on interstate commerce. It doesn’t regulate anything. It compels action ex nihilo. Wickard does not apply.


24 posted on 03/24/2012 7:38:53 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

“’If Congress could regulate Angel Raich when she grew marijuana on her property for self-consumption,’ Sutton wrote, ‘it is difficult to say Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.’”

Pure legerdemain. To compel individuals to purchase insurance is not to “regulate” their out of pocket spending. The two have nothing to do with eachother. As wrongheaded as was the Raich decision, at least regulating the harvesting and smoking of marijuana is a regulation of commerce. That is, so long as you assume home growth and personal consumption is interstate commerce, which it isn’t.

Point is, you must regulate the thing that is commerce for it to be regulation of interstate commerce. Mandating people buy insurance cannot be regulation of paying for a minute clinic visit with cash. They are completely seperate. It would be as if the feds presumed the commerce clause empowered on the basis of pot growing to order Raich to become a professional circus clown.

There may be a connection between clowning and pot use; I’m not familiar enough with clown culture to say. I am sure either way the compulsion wouldn’t be regulation of commerce and wouldn’t be constitutional.


25 posted on 03/24/2012 7:50:22 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lionheartusa1

I worry most about Justice Kennedy .


Same here.


26 posted on 03/24/2012 10:43:06 PM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson