Skip to comments.Dem lawmaker says Supreme Court may nix individual mandate [Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)]
Posted on 03/23/2011 1:20:26 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Dem lawmaker says Supreme Court may nix individual mandate By Daniel Strauss - 03/23/11 01:53 PM ET
On the one-year anniversary of the historic healthcare reform law, at least one Democratic congressman disagrees with his partys prevalent opinion and believes the U.S. Supreme Court may well strike down the laws individual mandate as unconstitutional.
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) doesn't see the debate over the Obama administration's healthcare reform law going away anytime soon, and concedes that things may go unfavorably for the law, at least in part, when challenges to it eventually reach the Supreme Court.
In a conference call Wednesday, Weiner said he expected Republicans and Democrats to continue to debate the law during the presidential campaign and throughout 2012.
I don't believe that this debate is going away," Weiner said. "I think that if Democrats believe that it's going to go away, they're wrong, and I don't represent the hide under your desk wing of the Democratic Party. I think we've got to go forward into this."
Weiner repeated a statement he made earlier Wednesday at the Center for American Progress: He expects the Supreme Court to eventually hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the Obama administration's law and uphold the challenge.
"I think there's a pretty good chance that the Supreme Court will strike down the mandate," Weiner said.
Numerous suits have been filed against the law and five federal judges have ruled on the constitutionality so far with three judges upholding the law and two ruling in favor of the challenge. One judge declared the individual mandate unconstitutional, while the other judge threw the whole law out. All five cases are being appealed.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on the law sometime in 2012.
Weiner's prediction goes against other Democrats who consider Republican efforts to repeal the healthcare law unlikely to bear fruit.
Both Republicans and Democrats marked the one-year anniversary of the passage of the healthcare law on Wednesday. Republicans criticized Democrats for defending a law that harms the American economy while Democrats celebrated its passage as a boon to the American people.
Recent polling shows that public opinion on the law remains at where it was roughly a year ago, with most Americans holding negative views.
With thousands of people given waivers how could this possibly be upheld.
Thx Weiner, remember there is no severability so the whole crappy mess is null and void....
Well what difference would THAT make. Hussein doesn’t pay any attention to court rulings which don’t go his way anyhow!
I wonder if Weiner is simply speculating or if he has some inside information. In either case, I hope he’s right that the mandate is toast.
That's not how the law works. Just because there is no severability clause does not mean that the entire law will be stricken down if one part is. It will be up to the Court to decide if some parts are severable from others.
He even looks like a turkey with his skinny head bobbing up and down..
Take a listen to this idiot and see what I mean..Wait a few seconds and then it will start..Big mouth Weiner..
Didn’t Weiner once take credit for being the “father” of this ObamaCare law?
It already was - by Judge Benson...those clauses are put in there for a reason. The fact these idiots left it out tell the real story; their normal legislative minions didn't write the AHCA abortion.
This is a free country, and the majority hereby overturns socialized medicine in order to preserve that freedom.
The individual mandate, including the $750 fine, was inserted in order to create a cash flow for the great thousand-tentacled monster that is Obamacare.
If you take out the mandate/fine/penalty, either the monster or the country dies from a shortage of cash flow. The whole thing is entirely unsustainable without an extortion from the people.
I believe judge vinson ruled the whole thing unconstitutional based on the non severability.
The ruling was that the part the Judge found unconstitutional was so essential to the rest of the law that without it the law could not stand. It had nothing to do about whether there was a severability clause or not. The Appeals Court, and ultimately SCOTUS, will make their own determination about the parts of the law, if any, that are unconstitutional and whether or not any constitutional parts of the law will remain in effect. Again, they will not be constrained by the absence of a severability clause.