Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Breyer: Obamacare faces Supreme Court review
Legal Newsline ^ | 4-15-09 | Chris Rizo

Posted on 04/15/2010 11:53:35 AM PDT by legalwatch

Legal challenges to the national health care overhaul signed last month by President Barack Obama will be heard eventually by the U.S. Supreme Court, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer predicted Thursday.

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


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: breyer; healthcare; justicebreyer; obamacare; scotus; stephenbreyer; supremecourt

1 posted on 04/15/2010 11:53:35 AM PDT by legalwatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: legalwatch

YESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!


2 posted on 04/15/2010 11:55:40 AM PDT by jessduntno ( If someone calls me racist, I reply "you are just saying that because I'm white!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch

If the court goes 5-4 Obama — Obamacare wins. Republicans in the U.S. Senate must reject any liberal he nominates to the SCOTUS. They must stand as one — no deals, no compromises.


3 posted on 04/15/2010 11:56:12 AM PDT by Mr. Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Wright

When SCOTUS rules ObamaCare unconstitutional, will next year’s State of the Union speech resemble one of Saddam Hussein’s State of the Tyranny speeches where he would name the disloyal and have them removed (forever)?


4 posted on 04/15/2010 11:59:07 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Wright

When SCOTUS rules ObamaCare unconstitutional, will next year’s State of the Union speech resemble one of Saddam Hussein’s State of the Tyranny speeches where he would name the disloyal and have them removed (forever)?


5 posted on 04/15/2010 11:59:15 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch

A bold prognosticator, that Breyer.


6 posted on 04/15/2010 11:59:20 AM PDT by perfect_rovian_storm (The worst is behind us. Unfortunately it is really well endowed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch

A turnover of about 75 democrat seats in the House in November 2010 would be nice to have on record, insofar as the SC is becoming more of a secondary quasi-legislative body; ie endorse what the voters want.


7 posted on 04/15/2010 12:01:09 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Wright

And if it goes 5-4 against Obama, Obamacare loses. This stating the obvious stuff is fun!

Bill Ayers could get confirmed for Stevens’ seat and not change the vote count on this. Kennedy is the only one to worry about and last I checked, he isn’t the one retiring.


8 posted on 04/15/2010 12:01:17 PM PDT by perfect_rovian_storm (The worst is behind us. Unfortunately it is really well endowed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm

What I was implying is this — there are two more years left of the Husseim Obama regime — alot can happen on the court’s structure in that time period. I was not specifically referring to the upcoming court battle, but rather on any and all SCOTUS appointments made by this guy during his entire term.


9 posted on 04/15/2010 12:08:02 PM PDT by Mr. Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch
Did AJ Breyer boldly predict which way AJ Breyer would vote?

Stevens is a liberal PITA, Obama can't do the Court much damage by replacing him ..... Ginzburg is the other likely early retiree. It would be helpful to replace either or both of them with more moderate AJ's.

10 posted on 04/15/2010 12:10:52 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch
Pray for the health of all the conservative federal judges.

They are all that standing in the way of the abyss.

11 posted on 04/15/2010 12:12:49 PM PDT by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch

I do not recognize anything these filthy Commies do . they can go pound sand on that illegal bill and anything else they claim to pass.


12 posted on 04/15/2010 12:19:59 PM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Wright

We just have to keep everyone healthy until 2012 (and hopefully beyond of course) and hope that Ginsburg’s desire for power overrides her desire to retire. :)


13 posted on 04/15/2010 12:20:09 PM PDT by perfect_rovian_storm (The worst is behind us. Unfortunately it is really well endowed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm

With Ginsberg and her husband both having health issues, we could be looking at another retirement in the near future. Especially if she thinks the WH will flip in NOV 2012.


14 posted on 04/15/2010 12:23:46 PM PDT by GailA (obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, retired Military, disabled & Seniors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
When SCOTUS rules ObamaCare unconstitutional, will next year’s State of the Union speech resemble one of Saddam Hussein’s State of the Tyranny speeches where he would name the disloyal and have them removed (forever)?

Since Obama signed the bill, perhaps SCOTUS can ask for a birth certificate?


15 posted on 04/15/2010 12:27:27 PM PDT by magooey (then - NO JUSTICE! NO PEACE!, now - NO DATA! NO WARMING!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch

Better be overturned. All of it.


16 posted on 04/15/2010 12:27:36 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch
The USSC COULD declare "Original Jurisdiction" over this case today IAW Article 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution.

Why they don't is both baffling and disheartening for the final outcome.

17 posted on 04/15/2010 12:28:52 PM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm
Kennedy is the only one to worry about and last I checked, he isn’t the one retiring.

No only that, but he's the author of the Citizens United free speech decision, against which Obama and his accomplices are waging jihad, and plan to continue to wage jihad into the confirmation hearings for the next justice. Guess what, Kennedy will probably be the deciding vote on Obamacare.

18 posted on 04/15/2010 12:34:16 PM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch

I have much more confidence in Breyer than I do in Ginsberg, Souter, or Sotomayor.


19 posted on 04/15/2010 12:34:21 PM PDT by Hoodat (For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Wright

Slightly less than 7 months until the next election.

Republicans should, but won’t, filibuster until then and then fight hand over fist for each nominee.

It is too important to the survival of the nation.


20 posted on 04/15/2010 12:36:43 PM PDT by HonestConservative (When Injustice becomes law, resistence becomes duty. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch

The “healthcare” bill is so full of constitutional holes it would make a good con-law midterm question subject to shoot down. Can’t see it standing up to any meaningful legal scrutiny.


21 posted on 04/15/2010 12:37:48 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

I’m not confident that the USSC, an agent of the federal government,

is going to rule against itself.


22 posted on 04/15/2010 12:38:40 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

Phyllis Schlaffley

had the best name for it:

“Healthcare Control Law”


23 posted on 04/15/2010 12:39:37 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Wright

no deals no compromises

no token one yes vote as CYA to the other RINOs.

all no and no lindsey RINO.


24 posted on 04/15/2010 12:41:29 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch

Did Justice Breyer make a statement about a pre-determined decision as well?


25 posted on 04/15/2010 12:42:27 PM PDT by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Wright

Obama’s trading one liberal for another. It’s nice to state they should reject his nominees but the numbers make that near impossible.

Besides, the only people that count are the conservatives and Kennedy. So long as the conservatives don’t have a health problem take them down (I don’t see ANY of them retiring with Obama there) that leaves only the swing vote of Kennedy to be concerned with. He isn’t looking to retire now but he isn’t a reliable vote either way. But based on prior rulings I wouldn’t assume he’d vote with the liberal block on this issue.


26 posted on 04/15/2010 12:50:51 PM PDT by Soul Seeker (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch

It all depends on which side of the bed Anthony Kennedy wakes up on that day.


27 posted on 04/15/2010 12:54:32 PM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch

And of course Breyer can phone in his decision now!


28 posted on 04/15/2010 1:03:47 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch

If the Supremes had taken seriously the problem of NObama’s birth certificate, we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.


29 posted on 04/15/2010 1:08:38 PM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
the republicans could have a 70-30 seat advantage in the Senate and it would not matter, the Republicans will NEVER filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, period. He could nominate Bill Aires and they will still roll over.
30 posted on 04/15/2010 1:09:16 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama = Epic Fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
Actually if the case is brought by a State it appears they "shall" have original jurisdiction.
31 posted on 04/15/2010 1:11:26 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
Well, you don't have to worry about Souter, since he retired some years ago.
32 posted on 04/15/2010 1:12:41 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
If the republicans had a large majority they wouldn't have to filibuster. Any nominee found offensive would never make it out of committee, especially now that the Spectre would no longer be Chair.
33 posted on 04/15/2010 1:15:44 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch

Ha!. Get out the rubber stamp.


34 posted on 04/15/2010 1:18:25 PM PDT by The Good Doctor (Democracy is the only system where you can vote for a tax that you can avoid the obligation to pay.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
You're thinking of Stevens, not Souter. I keep them apart by remembering that unlike Souter, Stevens isn't a queer.
35 posted on 04/15/2010 1:26:24 PM PDT by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch

If the court upholds this tripe, then it’s up to nullification and the states willing to resist.


36 posted on 04/15/2010 1:37:57 PM PDT by mrmeyer ("When brute force is on the march, compromise is the red carpet." Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat

embracing extinction are you?

our goal should be like patton says,

we want the enemy of America to extinguish themselves and we live to make more patriots.


37 posted on 04/15/2010 2:15:27 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

“embracing extinction are you?

our goal should be like patton says,

we want the enemy of America to extinguish themselves and we live to make more patriots.”

No I will never give up.


38 posted on 04/15/2010 3:01:31 PM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Wright
no deals, no compromises.

My gut tells me they have already been made.

There will be some lame duck RINO's come November and God only knows what they have been saving up for.

Please not that the Financial Reform crap contains language that would prevent the Court form interceding. The Constitution allows this. Ask yourself why the Republicans refused to use this, when they were in power.

39 posted on 04/15/2010 3:14:07 PM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
especially now that the Spectre would no longer be Chair.

How so, he replaced Orin Hatch, who gave us a couple of the worst ever.

40 posted on 04/15/2010 3:20:28 PM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch
You will pay you hard earned dollars for Obamacare or we will use our shiny new Remington 870s (that your tax dollars paid for) to come to your home and collect your fine.

Have a nice day.

IRS

41 posted on 04/15/2010 3:44:06 PM PDT by Gabrial (The Whitehouse Nightmare will continue as long as the Nightmare is in the Whitehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle; hinckley buzzard

Thanks. My bad.


42 posted on 04/15/2010 6:34:07 PM PDT by Hoodat (For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch

Oh, you betcha!


43 posted on 04/15/2010 7:53:54 PM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

>If the Supremes had taken seriously the problem of NObama’s
birth certificate, we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.<

I am not so sure that they can from what I understand of it.
The only one that really has any authority over the matter is the congress.

Although you must be a NBC to be POTUS there is no enforcement mechanism. So the SCOTUS is taking the side that the only ones who can take him out are the ones who are supposed to verify that he is indeed a NBC. That being the congress.


44 posted on 04/15/2010 11:14:01 PM PDT by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: legalwatch

I would bet money that Obama will strong arm the supremes to bending to his will.

Somehow he will either challenge them and tell them he will make more appointments to stack the deck or he will start some scandal and put them behind eight balls.

He will usurp the constitution again.


45 posted on 04/15/2010 11:16:28 PM PDT by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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