Skip to comments.Retired justice says Supreme Court likely to uphold health care law
Posted on 09/29/2011 2:07:32 PM PDT by Red Steel
Ninety-one-year-old retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens told Bloomberg News that he thinks President Obama's health care law will pass constitutional muster.
He referenced a 2005 Supreme Court decision that held the federal government could outlaw state-sanctioned medical marijuana even if the substance didn't cross state lines, which was based on a broad interpretation of the commerce clause.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
And of course, the Federal Government can mandate that terminally ill patients can smoke only Federal Government supplied marijuana to ease their pain.
So let’s see, an old leftist, activist justice is saying that Obama care passes constitutional muster . . . why am I not surprised?
That’s why the doddering old fool is retired:
“He referenced a 2005 Supreme Court decision that held the federal government could outlaw state-sanctioned medical marijuana even if the substance didn’t cross state lines”
Nobody was forcing anyone to buy Marijuana. Obamacare forces people to buy insurance. Big difference - MORON!
91 years old, and retired, and Stevens still manages to be wrong on every issue....
Ya gotta admire the consistency... ;)
Even though 80% of the people in this country don’t want ObamaCare? Amazing.....just amazing.
Worst thing that ever happened to Americans - “the commerce clause”
I’m pretty sure John Paul Stevens has been dead for quite some time. This must be a mistake.
Because of this argument. Whether or not it is good is for legal scholars to decide, but just because it came from his lips does not make it automatically invalid.
Too much ad hominem around here lately. It's illogical and lazy.
Between the ears anyway.
It’s not the Commerce Clause’s fault, it’s the Progressivists’ abuse of it in the name of a “living Constitution”.
Figures this douchebag was named by the RINO disaster Gerald Ford.
Dear Justice Stevens. The fed can outlaw medical marijuana because marijuana is already illegal. Duh....
John Paul Stevens is one of the disillusioned illogical crowd that thinks there is a “Right” for a “marriage” of two persons determined by dysfunctional, destructive, nihilistic behaviors. Come to think of it...he probably believes polygamy should be legal also.
He totally disregards legal definitions and precedents and the Constitution of the US which states that Just Law is based on Right Reason according to Nature. It is the fundamental principle of our legal system....he adopts Wrong reason according to Barney Frank.
Retired justice says Supreme Court likely to uphold health care law
To paraphrase Pelosi, have they read it...
This makes me nervous. I hope Mark Levin addresses this today.
Poor Stevens, he must be looking at the Cuban Constitution.
It is true.
They didn’t ens Campaign Finance reform and they didn’t protect property rights when they got the chance.
SCOTUS is totally unreliable.
About the only thing Stevens’s statement tells me is how Stevens would vote on the case.
And that of course is totally irrelevant.
What I need to know is how Justice Kennedy will vote on the case. I don’t think Stevens knows that (I’m not even sure Kennedy knows).
The scary thing is that four of the nine people on the supreme court look at it in exactly the same way. And a fifth one might depending on which way the wind is blowing on that particular day.
Agree, and a question I’ve posted in the past seems to gain no ground, but here it is again: Wondering if the wording should be changed from “regulate” to “Mediate” interstate commerce.
Seems to me the word “regulate” has been a boon to the Leftists, therefore a change to “mediate” unresolveable differences between the States.
Take the responsibility away from the Federal Government to “regulate” as that seems to be a feeder for the Left’s goal of centralizing government so they can do to us as they are today, and place the responsibility to the States with the Fed acting as mediator upon request only.
Ultimately we have to take away the perceived power of the Federal Government OVER the States, and return to States rights. The Fed as the entity chartered to maintain the affairs of the Union of the States only.
Anyway that’s my take on it.
A whole lotta thanks for nothing, Gerald Ford, you RINO. You and GHW Bush and Warren Rudman can all go suck eggs.
Should it be the case then it’d be the first shot heard round the world, IMHO.
Why does the SCOTUS get a 3 month vacation every year? I’m so sick of these overpaid morons living off the public and then spouting opinions about the “law”. There’s only 2 sets of laws that truly mean anything... 1: God’s law and 2. Nature’s law. All the rest is plain old man-made bullshit. Just as most of their pontificating opinions about the law is just plain old bullshit.
If Obama care is constitutional then any law or action by the federal government is.
Nice try, MSM. Ain’t gonna fly. It just bit the dust. I saw it, it cratered big time. It is now a worm-burner.
The chances of either happening are somewhere between slim and none.
Absolutely!! All Stephens is trying to do is sway the court.
What do they care. The Supremes will have top notch healthcare for themselves and their families for life. Why wouldn’t they screw the rest of us in the name of social justice.
A paper trail exists. I don’t think it is slim at all.
Obama and the Democrats will be out of power by 2012, and so will this healthcare foolishness.
Make that after 2012.
That old man has harmed this society in so many ways with his liberal activism on the bench.
HE SAYS WHAT THE LSM WANTS TH HEAR AND SETS THE TEMPLATE FOR DISSING SCOTUS
Levin on now discussing it!
This has got to be the dumbest interpretation of Obamacare comparisons that I've heard.
If they can control this based on the commerce clause the entire constitution can officially be used as a## wipe because there is NOTHINg that can’t be mandated based on this interpretation.
There will be nothing outside the power of the government over the governed, who will be more accurately referred to as slaves.
The rats had not brought up this pretty recent 2005 SC decision before. I wonder why? Does it have anything to do w/ the fact that it is a pretty flimsy argument at best, and they thought they had better arguments before, but now they are pathetically desperate to cling on to anything to make this unconstitutional mandate constitutional!
Liberals and progressives “interpreting” the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution have done more damage to this nation than many care to admit.
Getting closer to the reset button...
Article 1, Section 9 :
“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”
“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”
What the Founders clearly meant was that States with ports that imported goods and then shipped them to land locked States could not impose massive taxes merely because some States had no access to the sea.
Simple. Commerce Clause meant free trade between States.
Today, Constitution means 180 degree opposite of what was originally written
I'd rather all the federal courts limit themselves to working only 3 months of each year.
Old - dead - senile - whatever.
J.P. Stevens is almost certainly correct. The SC will foist Obamadeath on us and claim it’s all “constitutional.”
You’re right, though it could be argued that they crossed that bridge awhile ago.
Stevens is a senile old coot, and was an idiot when young too.
If the gov’t can force you to buy life insurance they can force you to do anything.