Breyer: Obamacare faces Supreme Court review

Legal Newsline ^ | 4-15-09 | Chris Rizo

[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.

[SpaceBar]

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.

[MrB]

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

is going to rule against itself.

[MrB]

Phyllis Schlaffley

had the best name for it:

“Healthcare Control Law”

[longtermmemmory]

no deals no compromises

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

all no and no lindsey RINO.

[thethirddegree]

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

[Soul Seeker]

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.

[DesScorp]

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

[Oldpuppymax]

And of course Breyer can phone in his decision now!

[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.

[TexasFreeper2009]

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.

[hinckley buzzard]

Actually if the case is brought by a State it appears they "shall" have original jurisdiction.

[hinckley buzzard]

Well, you don't have to worry about Souter, since he retired some years ago.

[hinckley buzzard]

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.

[The Good Doctor]

Ha!. Get out the rubber stamp.

[End Times Sentinel]

You're thinking of Stevens, not Souter. I keep them apart by remembering that unlike Souter, Stevens isn't a queer.

[mrmeyer]

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

[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.

[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.”

No I will never give up.

[itsahoot]

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.

[itsahoot]

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.