Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Retired justice says Supreme Court likely to uphold health care law
Yahoo News ^ | Wed, Sep 28, 2011 | Liz Goodwin

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News
KEYWORDS: commerceclause; johnpaulstevens; obamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

1 posted on 09/29/2011 2:07:35 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
John Paul Stevens is relevant because??????????
2 posted on 09/29/2011 2:10:45 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
"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."

And of course, the Federal Government can mandate that terminally ill patients can smoke only Federal Government supplied marijuana to ease their pain.

3 posted on 09/29/2011 2:11:05 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

So let’s see, an old leftist, activist justice is saying that Obama care passes constitutional muster . . . why am I not surprised?


4 posted on 09/29/2011 2:11:25 PM PDT by Sudetenland (There can be no freedom without God--What man gives, man can take away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

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!


5 posted on 09/29/2011 2:12:11 PM PDT by PhilosopherStone1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Amazing..

91 years old, and retired, and Stevens still manages to be wrong on every issue....

Ya gotta admire the consistency... ;)


6 posted on 09/29/2011 2:12:38 PM PDT by Uncle Ike (Rope is cheap, and there are lots of trees...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Even though 80% of the people in this country don’t want ObamaCare? Amazing.....just amazing.


7 posted on 09/29/2011 2:12:53 PM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Worst thing that ever happened to Americans - “the commerce clause”


8 posted on 09/29/2011 2:13:03 PM PDT by wesagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I’m pretty sure John Paul Stevens has been dead for quite some time. This must be a mistake.


9 posted on 09/29/2011 2:13:31 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
"is relevant because"

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.

10 posted on 09/29/2011 2:15:05 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll
I’m pretty sure John Paul Stevens has been dead for quite some time

Between the ears anyway.

11 posted on 09/29/2011 2:16:27 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wesagain

It’s not the Commerce Clause’s fault, it’s the Progressivists’ abuse of it in the name of a “living Constitution”.


12 posted on 09/29/2011 2:17:09 PM PDT by Shadow44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Figures this douchebag was named by the RINO disaster Gerald Ford.


13 posted on 09/29/2011 2:18:14 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2
Since when the activist judges give a hoot about what majority of people think? They know better than the rest of us peons!
14 posted on 09/29/2011 2:20:02 PM PDT by federal__reserve (Peace through strength has worked better than peace via appeasement in history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Dear Justice Stevens. The fed can outlaw medical marijuana because marijuana is already illegal. Duh....


15 posted on 09/29/2011 2:20:55 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

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.


16 posted on 09/29/2011 2:23:13 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; Nepeta; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Retired justice says Supreme Court likely to uphold health care law

To paraphrase Pelosi, have they read it...

17 posted on 09/29/2011 2:27:17 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

This makes me nervous. I hope Mark Levin addresses this today.


18 posted on 09/29/2011 2:29:48 PM PDT by freeagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
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.

Poor Stevens, he must be looking at the Cuban Constitution.

19 posted on 09/29/2011 2:30:02 PM PDT by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

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.


20 posted on 09/29/2011 2:32:39 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

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).


21 posted on 09/29/2011 2:33:29 PM PDT by Stosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hflynn
Stevens . . . must be looking at the Cuban Constitution.

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.

22 posted on 09/29/2011 2:36:00 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wesagain

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.


23 posted on 09/29/2011 2:36:33 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
Kagan served as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general and helped formulate the legal defense of the legislation. She is obligated to recuse herself. If she does not her fat ass should be impeached.
24 posted on 09/29/2011 2:45:25 PM PDT by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

A whole lotta thanks for nothing, Gerald Ford, you RINO. You and GHW Bush and Warren Rudman can all go suck eggs.


25 posted on 09/29/2011 2:47:40 PM PDT by bkopto (Obama is merely a symptom of a more profound, systemic disease in American body politic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Should it be the case then it’d be the first shot heard round the world, IMHO.


26 posted on 09/29/2011 2:47:52 PM PDT by SkyDancer (I Believe In The Law Until It Interferes With Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

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.


27 posted on 09/29/2011 2:53:35 PM PDT by vortigern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

If Obama care is constitutional then any law or action by the federal government is.


28 posted on 09/29/2011 2:53:53 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

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.


29 posted on 09/29/2011 2:54:39 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hflynn
She is obligated to recuse herself. If she does not her fat ass should be impeached.

The chances of either happening are somewhere between slim and none.

30 posted on 09/29/2011 2:56:01 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Shadow44

Absolutely!! All Stephens is trying to do is sway the court.


31 posted on 09/29/2011 3:00:31 PM PDT by mtnwmn (Liberalism leads to Socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mtnwmn

Stevens:(


32 posted on 09/29/2011 3:02:14 PM PDT by mtnwmn (Liberalism leads to Socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

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.


33 posted on 09/29/2011 3:02:20 PM PDT by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

A paper trail exists. I don’t think it is slim at all.


34 posted on 09/29/2011 3:02:24 PM PDT by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Obama and the Democrats will be out of power by 2012, and so will this healthcare foolishness.


35 posted on 09/29/2011 3:11:58 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pallis

Make that after 2012.


36 posted on 09/29/2011 3:13:12 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

That old man has harmed this society in so many ways with his liberal activism on the bench.


37 posted on 09/29/2011 3:14:29 PM PDT by mikeus_maximus (If we can't reimpose conservatives principles on the GOP under these circumstances., we never will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

HE SAYS WHAT THE LSM WANTS TH HEAR AND SETS THE TEMPLATE FOR DISSING SCOTUS


38 posted on 09/29/2011 3:15:48 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ....Rats carry plague)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Levin on now discussing it!


39 posted on 09/29/2011 3:19:23 PM PDT by freeagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
“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.”

This has got to be the dumbest interpretation of Obamacare comparisons that I've heard.

40 posted on 09/29/2011 3:27:14 PM PDT by tobyhill (A Democrat that doesn't lie would be a lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

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.


41 posted on 09/29/2011 3:38:05 PM PDT by Kozak ("It's not an Election it's a Restraining Order" .....PJ O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

If the SCOTUS upholds Obamacare, and the personal mandate in particular, then the concept and practice of a government with limits on its power is over and done with.

There will be nothing outside the power of the government over the governed, who will be more accurately referred to as slaves.

Mark

42 posted on 09/29/2011 3:49:59 PM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

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!


43 posted on 09/29/2011 3:51:46 PM PDT by parisa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

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...


44 posted on 09/29/2011 3:52:29 PM PDT by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch

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.”

Madison:

“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


45 posted on 09/29/2011 3:52:53 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: vortigern
Why does the SCOTUS get a 3 month vacation every year?

I'd rather all the federal courts limit themselves to working only 3 months of each year.

46 posted on 09/29/2011 5:08:24 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Old - dead - senile - whatever.

J.P. Stevens is almost certainly correct. The SC will foist Obamadeath on us and claim it’s all “constitutional.”


47 posted on 09/29/2011 5:12:08 PM PDT by workerbee (We're not scared, Maobama -- we're pissed off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

You’re right, though it could be argued that they crossed that bridge awhile ago.


48 posted on 09/29/2011 5:14:12 PM PDT by workerbee (We're not scared, Maobama -- we're pissed off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Stevens is a senile old coot, and was an idiot when young too.


49 posted on 09/29/2011 5:23:10 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

If the gov’t can force you to buy life insurance they can force you to do anything.


50 posted on 09/29/2011 5:29:03 PM PDT by hattend (If I wanted you dead, you'd be dead. - Cameron Connor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson