Skip to comments.Analysis: Two justices may decide fate of Obama healthcare law
Posted on 08/15/2011 4:54:58 PM PDT by PROCON
(Reuters) - The legal fate of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law will likely come down to two Republican appointees on the U.S. Supreme Court -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.
That would be a familiar role for Kennedy, a moderate conservative who often has cast the decisive vote on the most contentious issues before the nine-member high court divided between conservative and liberal factions.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
If congress has the power to force people to buy health insurance, they can cure the recession and the housing crunch by forcing people to buy houses. Just think of how much economic activity (and JOBS!) the US would have if every citizen bought one/two houses per year.
In other words:
“Hey Commie kooks. These are the two judges you need to harass.”
I dont either. I think it all comes down to Kennedy.
NO way will Roberts uphold this mandate...no way...now that lizbo can’t be any part of this....this would be one huge conflict of interest....
If you think that she-he is gonna recuse itself, you have another thing coming. These are fascists we are dealing with. They care neither for fairness or the rule of law, only power.
The Constitution says whatever 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices say it says.
Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan will all vote to uphold 0bamacare. Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts will all vote to throw it out.
The deciding vote will be Kennedy. He will decide based on whatever he thinks will make him look best in the history books (most of which are written by liberal academicians).
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Counsel representing the Administration in these cases has gotten their backsides handed to them on the individual mandate argument. There simply is no precedent for compelling citizens to purchase a product.
I doubt that even the addled Justice Kennedy can find sufficient precedent for such a dangerous idea.
When the SCOTUS decision comes down, we can count on it being 5-4 -- with Kennedy representing the 5.
For the past twenty years-or-so, it can be said that the law is what Anthony Kennedy says it is.
“There simply is no precedent for compelling citizens to purchase a product.”
I believe the Militia Act of 1792 sets a precedent in that it required men to provide themselves with a firearm, etc.
But that was limited and can be traced back to the Constitution. That’s not true of Obama Care.
How can anyone allow Elena Kagan to even be within 3 miles of this decision?
She, Breyer, Sotomayor and Ginsberg are committed Communists who vote with terror, the UN or anything that makes America weaker. The best thing would be when President Perry appoints two new conservatives when Sotomayor kicks and when Buzzy Ginsberg retires due to bad health.
I think this will come down to Kennedy.
You mean President Palin.
if the justices do the right thing and throw it out, will it end up helping Soetoro?
“The “experts” think Chief Justice Roberts will vote to uphold the individual mandate, I don’t think he will.”
If he does he will condemn the Bush administration for appointing him yet anther tyrannical abomination in a black robe grasping for limitless federal power.
Also if they do its a simple matter to do 2 things:
1: Mandate that all required insurance plans not cover procedures likely to be used by liberals or individuals who engage in leftist activities, by means of prohibiting reimbursement to doctors that do provide theses services to theses people. “because the doctor might simply charge more for their other services”
Start with obvious things like denying coverage to drug addicts. “To Save money”
Also prohibit coverage for abortion, birth-control, STD’s, ect.. again to “save money in the long run”
Also anyone who has ever been found to have engaged in theses “health risky” activity loses all possibility of coverage down the line for a long list of “potential resulting conditions.”
Call this the “personal responsibility and financial accountability mandate”.
The left insisted upon giving the Federal Government this tyranical power. Now let feel the pain, Let them suffer and die as a result!
Indeed as we are trying to control the cost of health care and we have this limitless power, we “must be justified” in denying them the possibility to even buy these services on their own.
2: Mandate the buying of “political insurance” from a goverment mandated pool which of course consist exclusively of republican party supporters.
One way or anther I won’t comply and I will defend my right not to comply with this abhorrent Unconstitutional usurpation of our rights.
A man has the right not to buy a service A man has a right to provided for his basic needs himself. The federal Government has no right to force a man to buy anyone elses services!
Healthcare for thousands of years in even the Western tradition has been a religious affair. The services payed for by the “approved list” do not
Besides if a man can be forced to buy a private service by the Federal Government then then Big Business really will have enslaved us thou the Force of the Federal goverment.
I’ve been saying for a while Anthony Kennedy is the most powerful man in America, aside from the usurper President.
The really dangerous part is most people don’t notice it.
Wild in the streets coming strong.
Don’t you think that business will boom once that albatross is remove
if the justices do the right thing and throw it out, will it end up helping Soetoro?
It didn’t help Hillary....he’ll be a loser once again. This will be the dagger.
If it is upheld, then it is a very short road to taking 401k assets (over, say, 100k) to buy up foreclosed houses. On paper the houses “belong” to the former owner of the 401k. You see in fascism the government doesn’t need to own the assets, it just totally controls them.
If this scenario came to pass, can you imagine the “minority outreach” provisions it would include? Time to close the so-called wealth gap. All justices who voted to uphold Obamacare could be relied on to uphold this.
Just out of curiousity, do you have links to these so-called “experts”? It’s not that I doubt you - I don’t - I’d just like to see how tortured their reasoning is.
When it comes to votes, it is ALWAYS about Kennedy. He, in fact, is THE most important man in America. HE controls the Supreme Court. His vote, left or right, decides 99% of the cases. 4 liberals, 4 conservatives and Kennedy. And don’t think for a minute is not aware of his power. He KNOWS he is the most powerful.
I agree. I don’t think Roberts or Kennedy will vote for this monstrosity, especially the way the Court of Appeals struck down part of it. Hopefully, the Supremes will strike down the rest of it.
Of course. He'll spin it into a partisan attack on SCOTUS: "Look! Evil Republican judges killed your healthcare!" Obama's done it before...
Remember he used the State of the Union to attack the Supreme Court on Citizens United.
The government won’t have to take the money from your 401K. What it will do is require a portion of your retirement account be allocated to holding Treasury debt (safe and secure, doncha know). They will start small at first, about 10%. It will quickly balloon to 25%. Then more. In the beginning it will only be a requirement if you want to take advantage of the tax savings. Soon after, the allocation will be mandatory. Then they’ll eliminate the tax advantage.
Only a unrepentant, brazen Fascist/Statist could vote to uphold the Individual Mandate.
I Expect 6-3 or 7-2.
Good point but you exaggerate. 99% of the cases are not 5-4.
If I recall correctly, Kennedy voted with the government on the Kelo decision. That being the case, he thinks it’s okay to expand the reading of the constitution concerning the government’s power to confiscate property. I don’t think that bodes well for our side.
After reading the history of the railroad retirement act, and the social security act, It may depend on the wording. Did obamacare use the word premium or tax? Did it reference the general welfare clause?
The railroad retirement act as originally written was declared unconstitutional. After it was changed to a tax and for the general welfare, it was sustained.
I think Justice Roberts is an great justice...and I would be incredibly surprised if he did that!? I doubt he will.
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.