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

Skip to comments.

Left panic stricken as Scalia says Obamacare individual mandate Constitutionally "not proper"
Coach is Right ^ | 3/28/2012 | Doug Book

Posted on 03/28/2012 10:03:53 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax

In Tuesday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General and chief ObamaCare advocate Donald Verrilli was presented with a substantial portion of his own posterior by Justice Antonin Scalia.

The summary execution began when Verrilli made the extraordinary mistake of schooling the Court on the proper meaning of its own decisions.

“No it didn’t,” said Scalia to the stunned Solicitor General in reference to his errant references to the significance of previous cases.

And what followed was a merciless barrage of facts exposing the overreach of the individual mandate, ObamaCare’s method of creating “fairness in healthcare” by making those who do not want to purchase insurance buy it anyway or suffer a penalty.

When US District Judge Roger Vinson found ObamaCare unconstitutional in 2011 he wrote simply “If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce…it would be ‘difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power,’ and we would have a Constitution in name only.” (1)

And Scalia not only repeated Vinson’s skepticism of Congress’ immediate use of the commerce clause power, he drove directly to the heart of Verrilli’s contention that the federal government has the absolute authority to impose the individual mandate because it is “necessary and proper” to the success of ObamaCare itself.

“In addition to being necessary, it has to be proper,” said Scalia of the federal government’s unprecedented decision to force unwilling participants into the insurance market and fine...

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


TOPICS: Government; Health/Medicine; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: obamacare; scalia; supremecourt; verrilli

1 posted on 03/28/2012 10:04:06 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

It looks like it’s going to be a 5-4 vote to strike down the ENTIRE law.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story


2 posted on 03/28/2012 10:06:59 AM PDT by Peter from Rutland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

We have been so let down so many times by the Supreme Court, I am a afraid to get excited.

The best possible solution is to strike down the whole 2,000 plus pages law.


3 posted on 03/28/2012 10:09:01 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

>>It looks like it’s going to be a 5-4 vote to strike down the ENTIRE law.<<

From your keyboard to God’s screen...


4 posted on 03/28/2012 10:13:30 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ('RETRO' Abortions = performed on 84th trimester individuals who think killing babies is a "right.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

So we’re depending on the Federal Govt to put limits on itself?


5 posted on 03/28/2012 10:13:34 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

I’ll bet there’s some petition underway already asking for the messiah to bypass/ignore the SCOTUS.


6 posted on 03/28/2012 10:15:11 AM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

In that case, the minority opinion should be interesting reading.


7 posted on 03/28/2012 10:16:23 AM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

>>So we’re depending on the Federal Govt to put limits on itself?<<

Sadly, we have to. Other examples of already-inculcated overreach (all of which should be reexamind and, hopefully, eliminated):

Medicare
Social Security
DOE
Federal War on Drugs
Patriot Act

I am sure between all of us we could come up with 100s of similar examples.

I hope this ruling is used to get the ball rolling on scaling the Federal Gummint back to what the Constitution says it is supposed to be.


8 posted on 03/28/2012 10:17:53 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ('RETRO' Abortions = performed on 84th trimester individuals who think killing babies is a "right.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Sad that 4 on the bench are likely capable of squinting their eyes and (pretending they can) see this monstrosity as Constitutional from our Founders' perspective. Even more sad that 2 of those 4 were put on the bench by an usurper to the Executive Office that has no authority given his foreign lineage to occupy the seat he holds.


9 posted on 03/28/2012 10:21:32 AM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Anybody find a “last days of Hitler” parody for Obamacare?


10 posted on 03/28/2012 10:22:32 AM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland
It looks like it’s going to be a 5-4 vote to strike down the ENTIRE law.

And I would suggest impeachment and removal of the 4 dissenting; because this is in direct violation of the Oath of Office they have taken. With televised recordings, and innumerable witnesses - each voluntarily and without reservation SWORE to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, without reservation and of their own free will. It's pretty clear that any ruling contrary to defending the US Constitution is a voilation of their duty - and should have consequences.

11 posted on 03/28/2012 10:22:47 AM PDT by Hodar ( Who needs laws; when this FEELS so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

I wonder if the economy will take off, if the court strikes this down? How soon will companies start hiring like crazy?


12 posted on 03/28/2012 10:23:30 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; Peter from Rutland

I agree. And (without meaning to ill-judge you or anyone else), I rarely, rarely pray for this or that temporal political outcome. But I prayed for Kerry’s defeat in 2004 and I’ll pray again for this horror of a law to be rejected.


13 posted on 03/28/2012 10:29:10 AM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
"So we’re depending on the Federal Govt to put limits on itself?"

We may as well have a unitary government if "Federal" has no meaning. What's a federal system for? So we can each design our own flag?

14 posted on 03/28/2012 10:30:20 AM PDT by cookcounty (Newt 2012: ---> Because he got it DONE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Business would like to see single payer to get themselves out of it. While they may be joyed that obamacare is tossed, the current system is a burden to them. I don’t see that this alone will cause a hiring boom.


15 posted on 03/28/2012 10:30:28 AM PDT by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
So we’re depending on the Federal Govt to put limits on itself?

...and that works so well. Just look at the debt ceiling(s)

16 posted on 03/28/2012 10:30:42 AM PDT by Roccus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
And I would suggest impeachment and removal of the 4 dissenting

So tell us how we are going to get a 2/3rds vote for removal in the Senate?

17 posted on 03/28/2012 10:32:06 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
The Communists are very good at planning each move, they have been at it for over sixty years, to bury us. They are so close to succeeding. Let's look at this:
Obamma publicly insults the SCOTUS.
Obamma appoints communist judge.
Obammacare get’s challenged and rejected by SCOTUS.
Obamma propaganda machine tells populaces that the SCOTUS rejected Obammacare, not on grounds, but in spiteful revenge.
Obamma’s OWS crowd demand “justice”.
Riots begin, marshal law declared.
Checkmate-Kruschev.
18 posted on 03/28/2012 10:32:08 AM PDT by RavenLooneyToon (Tail gunner Joe was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland
It looks like it’s going to be a 5-4 vote to strike down the ENTIRE law.

Gawd I hope so. But do you remember how apes##t the left went over the 5-4 Bush v Gore decision?

19 posted on 03/28/2012 10:34:03 AM PDT by Marathoner (Obama has his own 9-9-9-plan: $9.99 a gallon at the pump.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
I can't believe that ‘not proper’ is the strongest criticism that an intelligent adult (in the business of the LAW) could come up with!!

In fact, the law is so clear on what may and may not be done, that I don't know why the thing got as far as it did in the first place.

From the day that monstrous fraud on the American public was proposed, we should have taken the word ‘impossible’ out of every Dictionary of the English language!!

20 posted on 03/28/2012 10:35:15 AM PDT by SMARTY ("The man who has no inner-life is a slave to his surroundings. "Henri Frederic Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

they should go after Kagan for not recusing herself...so what if she doesnt get tossed by the Senate, The House needs to do their job.


21 posted on 03/28/2012 10:35:27 AM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: All

Rush Limbaugh said the justices are not going to read all 2700 pages of the bill to determine what to leave in it and what to take out. It will either pass or fail in its totality.


22 posted on 03/28/2012 10:41:03 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather ("We Need To Teach The Establishment a Lesson" - Newt Gingrich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
Scalia addresses the ObamaCare case:


23 posted on 03/28/2012 10:42:42 AM PDT by FormerACLUmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY

“I can’t believe that ‘not proper’ is the strongest criticism that an intelligent adult (in the business of the LAW) could come up with!!”

His job is not to use words that are inflammatory, his job is to interpret the US Constitution. The term, “necessary and proper” is what’s in the Constitution, and he’s merely pointing out clearly that this law fails to meet constitutional muster: it “may be necessary, but it’s not proper”. It was precisely the correct way to phrase the observation.


24 posted on 03/28/2012 10:46:09 AM PDT by jagusafr ("Write in Palin and prepare for war...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

If the quote is accurate Scalia refered to the current administration as “the regime” Is that an accurate quote? It speaks volumes about what he thinks about the current administration.

“And the judge continued, saying although ObamaCare’s individual mandate might be “necessary” to the success of the Regime’s healthcare scheme as a whole, “…it’s not proper because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it’s supposed to be a government of limited powers.” (2) “


25 posted on 03/28/2012 10:50:02 AM PDT by airedale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Screw Obamacare!


26 posted on 03/28/2012 10:50:23 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY

The word “proper” wasn’t merely snatched out of thin air.

The Solicitor General brought up the Necessary and Proper Clause as relevant in addition to the Interstate Commerce Clause, as support for this mandate.

Scalia said it might be necessary to the scheme of the whole law, but that didn’t make it proper.

Proper in this case means constitutionally correct, rather than proper as in do you drink from your tea cup with your pinkie finger held straight, or crooked.

Context is everything.

There is nothing weak about Scalia’s replies to the Gov’t lawyer.


27 posted on 03/28/2012 10:52:50 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

This is why, in my experience, Liberals tend to make poor software developers: they tend to not “get” little things like “and” conditions.


28 posted on 03/28/2012 10:58:16 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

I don’t think that is correct. I am not sure, but I think companies are penalized for having employees under Obamacare. That is why there were so many wavers this year.

Companies would have had to have massive layoffs or go out of business. I guess they could also get rid of sponsored healthcare.

Who really knows with 2,000 page confusing monster hanging over us. Businesses are terrified.


29 posted on 03/28/2012 11:00:30 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

2800 pages, but who read it anyway....


30 posted on 03/28/2012 11:01:15 AM PDT by Average Al (Forbidden fruit leads to many jams.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Average Al
who read it anyway...

Apparently Ken Cuccinelli's staff did...

31 posted on 03/28/2012 11:05:04 AM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (Romney - Santorum: Twin Sons of Different Mothers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
Leftist media pundits blame Verrilli’s questionable performance Tuesday on a lack of being properly prepared. They don’t seem to understand that arguing in favor of a thoroughly unconstitutional law is not an easy thing to do, especially when the audience can neither be handpicked, nor the questions pre-approved.

But...but...ObamaCare sounded so good in their echo chambers!

32 posted on 03/28/2012 11:15:07 AM PDT by randog (Tap into America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

From your keyboard to God’s iPhone


33 posted on 03/28/2012 11:21:41 AM PDT by Mr. K (If Romney wins the primary, I am writing-in PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
That makes sense.

But, are the justices barred from opinion altogether? Can't they weigh in unreservedly and bring all THEIR judgment and understanding of the law to bear in the most articulate way possible?

Where is it written that they may not express an educated and informed statement apart from the exact language of the constitution?

34 posted on 03/28/2012 11:25:13 AM PDT by SMARTY ("The man who has no inner-life is a slave to his surroundings. "Henri Frederic Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

I’m inclined to think it would be 6-3 or 7-2 to strike, at which point Kagan would find since her vote is irrelevant, recuse herself and end up with a 6-2 or 6-1 to strike.

Stranger things have happened... I nay have it bass-ackwards!!


35 posted on 03/28/2012 11:28:42 AM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

36 posted on 03/28/2012 11:46:30 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

Let’s all hope so, but you realize that Kennedy will be subjected to relentless pressure. I only hope that he isn’t a denizen of the DC social/political scene.


37 posted on 03/28/2012 11:50:30 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax; potlatch; PhilDragoo; bitt

The 2700 pages of the healthcare law are just the framework for the tens of thousands of pages of regulations, current and future. Much of the law defers to the discretion of the HHS Secretary. Sebelius will continue to issue directives, law or no law. If that fails, there are always Executive Orders. This will be a long- term battle.


38 posted on 03/28/2012 11:58:47 AM PDT by ntnychik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ntnychik; All
I'm afraid you're right and Obama doesn't care about laws anyway. I pray SCOTUS overturns this but it will cause much confusion for some time.

 

 

39 posted on 03/28/2012 12:46:42 PM PDT by potlatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

Lol, hopefully off to the junkyard!


40 posted on 03/28/2012 12:49:07 PM PDT by potlatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

A mandate is merely a dictate. Thus, if we are dictated to, do we then live under a Dictatorship?

If our freedom of choice is taken from us by the dictates of a hostile Federal government, then what Liberty do we have left?


41 posted on 03/28/2012 1:21:35 PM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
"The construction applied... to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof," goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution... Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument."

--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:385

42 posted on 03/28/2012 1:26:33 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

“FreeAtlanta wrote:
I wonder if the economy will take off, if the court strikes this down? How soon will companies start hiring like crazy?”

Companies are likely to already know Hussein doesn’t like to be told no, and be worried how he will “double down” in response to this level of a reprimand on his agenda.


43 posted on 03/28/2012 1:35:31 PM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: treetopsandroofs

“I’ll bet there’s some petition underway already asking for the messiah to bypass/ignore the SCOTUS.”

I believe they’ll try hard to ignore a ruling against them, maybe with an EO, if possible. Not hard to imagine how that would read.


44 posted on 03/28/2012 2:03:29 PM PDT by Heart of Georgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

They have to knock the whole thing down. No severability clause in the act. Further they admitted it can’t work without the mandate so why keep any of it?


45 posted on 03/28/2012 6:36:32 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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