Skip to comments.Left panic stricken as Scalia says Obamacare individual mandate Constitutionally "not proper"
Posted on 03/28/2012 10:03:53 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
In Tuesdays 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 didnt, 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, ObamaCares 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 Vinsons skepticism of Congress immediate use of the commerce clause power, he drove directly to the heart of Verrillis 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 governments unprecedented decision to force unwilling participants into the insurance market and fine...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
It looks like it’s going to be a 5-4 vote to strike down the ENTIRE law.
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.
>>It looks like its going to be a 5-4 vote to strike down the ENTIRE law.<<
From your keyboard to God’s screen...
So we’re depending on the Federal Govt to put limits on itself?
I’ll bet there’s some petition underway already asking for the messiah to bypass/ignore the SCOTUS.
In that case, the minority opinion should be interesting reading.
>>So were 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):
Federal War on Drugs
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.
Anybody find a “last days of Hitler” parody for Obamacare?
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.
I wonder if the economy will take off, if the court strikes this down? How soon will companies start hiring like crazy?
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.
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?
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.
...and that works so well. Just look at the debt ceiling(s)
So tell us how we are going to get a 2/3rds vote for removal in the Senate?
Gawd I hope so. But do you remember how apes##t the left went over the 5-4 Bush v Gore decision?
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!!
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.
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.
“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.
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 ObamaCares individual mandate might be necessary to the success of the Regimes healthcare scheme as a whole, its 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 its supposed to be a government of limited powers. (2) “
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.
This is why, in my experience, Liberals tend to make poor software developers: they tend to not “get” little things like “and” conditions.
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.
2800 pages, but who read it anyway....
Apparently Ken Cuccinelli's staff did...
But...but...ObamaCare sounded so good in their echo chambers!
From your keyboard to God’s iPhone
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?
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!!
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.
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.
Lol, hopefully off to the junkyard!
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?
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:385
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.
“Ill bet theres 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.
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?