Pence: Odds are on Supreme Court striking down healthcare reform

The Hill ^ | October 8, 2010 | Michael O'Brien

[jazusamo]

A top Republican said Friday that he expects the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down key parts of the new healthcare reform law as unconstitutional.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the third-ranking House Republican, who serves as conference chairman, said he saw enough votes on the high court to strike a blow to President Obama's signature domestic initiative.

"It's going to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court's going to decide whether or not the Constitution of the United States permits the government to order the American people to purchase goods or services, whether they want them or need them or not," Pence said Friday on WLS radio in Indiana.

The Indiana lawmaker, and potential 2012 presidential candidate, has been among the crowd of Republicans to question whether a central part of Democrats' healthcare reform bill is constitutional. The crux of their argument is that the individual mandate — the section of the law requiring individuals to have health insurance of some sort — violates the Constitution.

A federal judge in Michigan dismissed a major case on Thursday challenging the healthcare law's constitutionality on that grounding, though other lawsuits are still being litigated in other federal districts. If courts in different areas of the country end up issuing different rulings, it could heighten the chances that the Supreme Court would take the case.

If it gets to that point, Pence said, he could envision five of the court's member voting to rule the bill unconstitutional.

"I rather like our chances when this thing gets to the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "I think there could be a narrow majority on the court that recognizes that you cannot compel the American people to purchase health insurance just as a function of being an American citizen."

[BocoLoco]

“Pence and the other Republicans all opposed this horrible bill.”

Opposing a bill that’s not only un-Constitutional, but anti-Republic, is not nearly enough. Congress has the power to investigate any bill that’s passed before it ever gets to the Supreme Court, especially if all or a part of any bill passed is illegal. Did Pence ever call or demand a panel? An investigation? Anyone else? No. They didn’t even read the bill just like they haven’t read the past 200 bills. And that’s why the Republicrats don’t know if it’s Unconstitutional or not.

The Republicrats in Washington are one in the same. They helped pass bills that lined the pockets of many banks by stealing your money. They helped pass the lovely Patriot Act. They’ve done so much damage in the past 8 years it’s been astronomical. And you want me and others to continue to put money in their coffers? Dream on.

And that’s only the half of it. To trust any of them would be self-defeating. All the tea party appears to be is a group of angry Republicans who didn’t get their way in 2008. Where were you in 2000? 2004? Who started the Tea Parties? Last time I checked it was angry Glenn Beck and his merry band of sheikh-butt kissers at Fox. There may be a few people in the bunch who might be of a different “party affiliation”, but the reality is America is not the Super Bowl and all this sideline cheerleading Republicrat supporters continue to do is perpetuate the underlying problem.

And that problem is the system is completely corrupt, totally broken. The only way to fix it is to clean house and start over with a core of Constitutionally-based people. If that makes me a “troll”, so be it. Anyone not in one of the two camps is considered an outcast because we’re calling a spade a spade and the cheerleaders are getting angry because of it. I can live with that too, and have for a long time. I’m a Constitution Party member. I will only vote for Constitution Party candidates, and Dr. Alan Keyes as he’s one of the last true true political heroes we have. Keyes as walked the walk. He’s been arrested for anti-abortion. He’s filed suits against the usurper. He’s fought long and hard. Republicans going to jail for fighting for what’s right? Democrats? Yeah, right.

And I won’t vote for any Republicrat, regardless of how “nice” or how “sincere” they are because they continue to cling to a falling star. Short term gains or long term solutions? I have made a choice. How about you?

[libstripper]

“Pence and the other Republicans all opposed this horrible bill.”

Opposing a bill that’s not only un-Constitutional, but anti-Republic, is not nearly enough. Congress has the power to investigate any bill that’s passed before it ever gets to the Supreme Court, especially if all or a part of any bill passed is illegal. Did Pence ever call or demand a panel? An investigation? Anyone else? No. They didn’t even read the bill just like they haven’t read the past 200 bills. And that’s why the Republicrats don’t know if it’s Unconstitutional or not.

The Republicrats in Washington are one in the same. They helped pass bills that lined the pockets of many banks by stealing your money. They helped pass the lovely Patriot Act. They’ve done so much damage in the past 8 years it’s been astronomical. And you want me and others to continue to put money in their coffers? Dream on.

And that’s only the half of it. To trust any of them would be self-defeating. All the tea party appears to be is a group of angry Republicans who didn’t get their way in 2008. Where were you in 2000? 2004? Who started the Tea Parties? Last time I checked it was angry Glenn Beck and his merry band of sheikh-butt kissers at Fox. There may be a few people in the bunch who might be of a different “party affiliation”, but the reality is America is not the Super Bowl and all this sideline cheerleading Republicrat supporters continue to do is perpetuate the underlying problem. And that problem is the system is completely corrupt, totally broken. The only way to fix it is to clean house and start over with a core of Constitutionally-based people. If that makes me a “troll”, so be it. Anyone not in one of the two camps is considered an outcast because we’re calling a spade a spade and the cheerleaders are getting angry because of it. I can live with that too, and have for a long time. I’m a Constitution Party member. I will only vote for Constitution Party candidates, and Dr. Alan Keyes as he’s one of the last true true political heroes we have. Keyes as walked the walk. He’s been arrested for anti-abortion. He’s filed suits against the usurper. He’s fought long and hard. Republicans going to jail for fighting for what’s right? Democrats? Yeah, right.

And I won’t vote for any Republicrat, regardless of how “nice” or how “sincere” they are because they continue to cling to a falling star. Short term gains or long term solutions? I have made a choice. How about you? You've done a geat job of proving you're nothing but a troll. Because the Republicans aren't as perfect as you like, you're urging us all not to vote and work in this election, thus assuring a complete win for Obama and communism.

[BocoLoco]

“You’ve done a geat job of proving you’re nothing but a troll. Because the Republicans aren’t as perfect as you like, you’re urging us all not to vote and work in this election, thus assuring a complete win for Obama and communism. “

You lack faith in the Constitution. You also lack faith in the will of the American people. You fear, and therefore you blindly follow. That is why we continue to fail. People like you make a choice of the “lesser of two evils”. But the reality is the choice is still EVIL.

Cry foul all you want. The history is all there. Republicrats have failed to uphold the Constitution. They have FAILED THE PEOPLE. And you as well as others continue to let it happen by NOT voting for Constitutional candidates instead of party candidates out of fear of “Communism”, or “Socialism”.

That’s not the real threat here. The real threat is our liberties being tossed aside because of fear words like “terrorism”, “socialism”, and “recession”. These can never happen so long as candidates fight for the Constitution, NOT PARTY LINES! Parties are corruptable, as evidencd by Republicans AND Democrats who have urinated on the Constitution.

And you’ve proven very well you are a cheeleader instead of a Patriot.

[Forty-Niner]

“I expect this next congress to throw out everything O has signed into law and I mean everything. If they don’t, we’ll have to have another round of Tea Party rebellions to turn another load of Repub incumbents out of office. Any Repub who doesn’t have the stomach for a fight needs to go home.”

I agree with your entire Post....good job!

The last part above, (grizzly) bears repeating...............

[freedomwarrior998]

Incorrect. There is no severability clause. If one part is struck down, the whole thing is in the trash can.

Wrong.

See: Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission, 286 U.S. 210, 234, 52 S.Ct. 559, 565, 76 L.Ed. 1062 (1932).

[freedomwarrior998]

Wishful thinking. The Supreme Court decided long ago that no severability clause is needed. Just watch, the Court will probably decide that something in the bill is unconstitutional, but I guarantee you that they won’t strike down the whole thing.

Correct.

[freedomwarrior998]

I don't have a "refernce" but I have a citation.

"Unless it is evident that the legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law." Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission.

[gathersnomoss]

What the hell is Pence smoking? With today’s Supremes you will continue to get progressive rulings.

Hey Pence...next time you are on Jeopardy, don’t take “The Constitution”, why not try “The Grand Illusion” for $100.

[freedomwarrior998]

It ceratainly DOES apply to legislation and the usual boiler plate clause to make it severable was not in the version that passed.

Wrong. See: Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma.

That has been discussed many times on this forum.

No offense, but don't believe everything you read on the internet. ESPECIALLY what is posted by random people on discussion forums.

[greeneyes]

“They can’t strike down the whole thing, only parts of it. We really need to win this in Congress, not the courts.”

We need to win this both places. It is absolutely imperative to get the Supreme Court to decide that there is a limit to how far the “commerce clause, and welfare clause” can be stretched. In other words, the 10th amendment is not just meaningless prose.

A bill to repeal will not survive a presidential veto, and likely would not have the 2/3 needed to pass it over the veto. Congress can defund as much as possible, but unless the court rules it unconstitutional, some parts will be implemented before Obama can be voted out.

[greeneyes]

I am not so sure they “forgot”. Maybe they just wanted to make sure that everyone got their special deal, and if one deal fell apart, then no deal for anyone else.

Could even be evil intentions. If the mandate to purchase fails, then the Insurance Company wouldn't get it's trade off for providing coverage for preexisting conditions.

[capt. norm]

No offense, but don't believe everything you read on the internet. ESPECIALLY what is posted by random people on discussion forums.

Heard it from Mark Levin on his show...he's not exactly "random people". I rather admire his legal talent.

[Let's Roll]

Yeah, the way they did Campaign Finance Reform.

These guys need to get over expecting someone else to do the heavy lifting and step up to the plate themselves - it’s their job to kill it.

[Eye of Unk]

I foresee that whoever has the strongest platform on removing Obamacare totally will also have the best chance as being nominated as POTUS.

[freedomwarrior998]

He's wrong, as I showed you. He's a political commentator now, not a lawyer. He's likely never adequately researched this issue (something that real lawyers do.) Just because we want something to be true, doesn't mean that it is so. I don't like this idiotic Obamacare law. I believe that it needs to be defunded and repealed. We need to focus our energies on that. I also believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. But simply wishing that the Supreme Court is going to magically strike all of it down because it doesn't contain a severability clause is nothing more than wishful thinking. The Courts have consistently held that severability is presumed, unless a showing can be made that the law would not have been enacted but for the provision.

"[A] court should refrain from invalidating more of the statute than is necessary. . . . [W]henever an act of Congress contains unobjectionable provisions separable from those found to be unconstitutional, it is the duty of this court to so declare, and to maintain the act in so far as it is valid." Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678, 683 (1986).

"[W]e try not to nullify more of a legislature’s work than is necessary, for we know that [a] ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people." Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New Eng., 546 U.S. 320 (2006).

[dr_who]

Does Pence have the ability to read the minds of justices or is just hoping this will happen so that he doesn’t have to vote for repeal?

[Agamemnon]

He's wrong, as I showed you. He's a political commentator now, not a lawyer.

Levin in his professional life has never not been a lawyer. Get your facts straight.

From Wikipedia:

"B.A. from Temple University, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude. Levin also earned a Juris Doctor from Temple University Beasley School of Law.

"Beginning in 1981, Levin served as adviser to several members of President Ronald Reagan's Cabinet, eventually becoming Associate Director of Presidential Personnel and ultimately Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese; Levin also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education, and Deputy Solicitor (BTW for you, "freedomwarrior 998" that means "lawyer") of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

"He has practiced law in the private sector (OOPS! there's that "lawyer" term again), and is president of Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative public interest law firm founded in 1976 and based in Leesburg, Virginia."

Yeah, he's not a lawyer. He's just a commentator. [/sarc]. A noted author in the context of the history of law, as well: Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto was released on March 24, 2009, and became a No. 1 New York Times best seller for eleven of twelve weeks [ref. Wikipedia].

Just curious: Have you ever been a practicing Attorney General, yourself?

And again, just curious -- have you any personal experience practicing before the same courts as Levin has, or have you any experience arguing any of the points you are trying to make here before any court of law?

Cuccinelli IS a CURRENTLY PRACTICING lawyer and it just so happens that he is the current serving AG for the State of Virgina. It is he and his team who crafted the challenge.

I'll wager that Cucinelli knows ALL the prevailing law and context of decisions better than any "blogger" on this board. You provide no context to the cases you cite, hence the relevance of the language you quote is meaningless.

Having progressed his case successfully thus far, I am content with Cucunelli's opinion with regard to his anticipated success over yours -- whether you happen to write as just another "arm chair lawyer" yourself, or not.

[freedomwarrior998]

Levin in his professional life has never not been a lawyer. Get your facts straight.

You should get your facts straight. Just because one has a J.D. doesn't mean that one is a lawyer. In fact, one can get a bar card, practice law, and then later quit. Levin's trade is political commentary now, not law.

From Wikipedia:

Did you actually just cite Wikipedia? BWWWWWWWAAAAAAHHAHHAHAHA!

Yeah, he's not a lawyer. He's just a commentator. [/sarc]. A noted author in the context of the history of law, as well: Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto was released on March 24, 2009, and became a No. 1 New York Times best seller for eleven of twelve weeks [ref. Wikipedia].

Uh huh, and it's a book meant for the masses, not an entry in a legal journal on the severability doctrine, which of course is what is relevant to the context here.

Just curious: Have you ever been a practicing Attorney General, yourself?

Fallacious.

And again, just curious -- have you any personal experience practicing before the same courts as Levin has, or have you any experience arguing any of the points you are trying to make here before any court of law?

Yes.

Cuccinelli IS a CURRENTLY PRACTICING lawyer and it just so happens that he is the current serving AG for the State of Virgina. It is he and his team who crafted the challenge.

Did you even read Cuccinelli's brief? Virginia is challenging the mandate, not the entire law.

I'll wager that Cucinelli [sic]knows ALL the prevailing law and context of decisions better than any "blogger" on this board. You provide no context to the cases you cite, hence the relevance of the language you quote is meaningless.

Look up the cases yourself. The severability doctrine is well established. Whether you like it or not, the lack of a severability clause does not mean that the Court will strike down the entire bill because of one Unconstitutional provision. You can stick your fingers in your ears, stamp your feet, throw out fallacious appeals to authority, or do whatever else you want, but the FACTS of the situation are exactly as I have outlined to you. Pretending otherwise won't change that.

Having progressed his case successfully thus far, I am content with Cucunelli's [sic] opinion with regard to his anticipated success over yours -- whether you happen to write as just another "arm chair lawyer" yourself, or not.

You can't even spell his name correctly. In any case, Virginia is challenging the mandate, which is most likely Unconstitutional. However, even if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, does not mean that the rest of the bill will be. Whether or not you like the way that the Courts have established the severability doctrine, the doctrine is settled law.

[Cboldt]

"I think there could be a narrow majority on the court that recognizes that you cannot compel the American people to purchase health insurance just as a function of being an American citizen."

ROTFL. The same who would recognize that the government can't compel the American people to buy retirement insurance (FICA), or medical insurance (Medicare/payroll tax)?

Fat chance. The government is out of control. The only way it'll be reined in is by collapse or by being crushed.

[capt. norm]

He's wrong, as I showed you. He's a political commentator now, not a lawyer.

Mark R. Levin grew up in Cheltenham Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Levin graduated from Cheltenham High School and holds a B.A. from Temple University, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude. Levin also earned a Juris Doctor from Temple University Beasley School of Law.

Beginning in 1981, Levin served as advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan's Cabinet, eventually becoming Associate Director of Presidential Personnel and ultimately Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese; Levin also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education, and Deputy Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

He has practiced law in the private sector, and is president of Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative public interest law firm founded in 1976 and based in Leesburg, Virginia.

Levin has participated in the Freedom Concerts, an annual benefit concert to aid the families of fallen soldiers, and he uses his radio program to promote the concerts.[2][3] Levin is also involved with Troopathon, a charity which sends care packages to soldiers serving overseas.[4]

In 2001, the American Conservative Union awarded Levin its Ronald Reagan Award.