Posted on 11/14/2011 7:15:57 AM PST by Second Amendment First
Headline only
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
The next Congress and the new REPUBLICAN President will have to PERMANENTLY overturn Obamacare.
Me either. About the best thing about this getting heard soon is that Conservatives currently hold a marginal sway on the court. If it waits any longer, Obama might get a crack at changing that balance.
My Best Guess is that it will be a muddled, neutral decision that doesn't really settle anything one way or the other.
Best case is "It's unconstitutional", which I frankly doubt will happen. Too many politics involved, and the libs on the court will put paid to that happening, I think.
Worst case is "The bulk of this is constitutional, end of story.", which I think is also a fairly likely outcome. 75% of the law will stand, and the rest will be backdoored through later on when the American People go back to watching "Dancing with the Stars".
I wish that I was wrong. Frankly, and without trying to be too hyperbolic, I think that ObamaCare will be the end of American society, at least as we know it. If, for no other reason than the required loss of freedoms, and the guaranteed loss of employers that will be its end result.
They have certainly been asked to decide it, but they can rule that the issue isn't yet ripe.
At least one case at the Circuit level was decided on the basis of "standing," of some form. IIRC, it was the one where a state passed a law making federalized purchase mandates illegal in that state.
I think Obama wanted this to be fast tracked because he already knows the out come.
No one has standing any more.
We are running out of soap boxes and ballot boxes.. but the ammo boxes are still full... Just saying.
no, the order sets forth exactly what is to be argued, constitutionality is what will be decided.
They've got conflicting lower court rulings piling up left and right. I don't think they can punt on this one.
Lots of insurance companies will go out of business = lots of job losses. Same in the medical field.
Yep. Just as it was planned. Also a lot of infirm and elderly will die for lack of treatment. But again, just as it was planned.<p.Thanks to the obama and Democrat voters.
If zer0 has his druthers, he'd have 8 of the 9 Supremes recuse themselves. Obviously, the only one that knows thoroughly enough all about zer0Care on that court to judge its constitutionality is Kagen. She has "standing". In this scenario, I'll take a wild guess and predict its upheld as constitutional by a vote of 1 to 0.
Think about this for a moment. Dems have been screaming bloody murder for decades that health care is too inaccessible, yet in almost the same breath they whine and moan about how there are too many people straining Mother Gaia’s resources. Then, when they think no one’s watching, they whisper about how they wouldn’t mind a violent revolution to dispose of those of us who refuse to think like them.
They must be true idiots.
Now, when they start advocating for fatty, sugary foods, pay-for-service healthcare, gun rights, that is, anything and everything that raises the mortality ate of their “inferiors”, I’ll be at somewhat impressed (repulsed, but at least they’ll look intelligently diabolic).
Next Door Neighbor provides insurance for small businesses. He calls himself "Their HR Dept."
We were yakking awhile ago, talk turned to politics, and I jokingly asked him how he was liking ObamaCare.
He stopped dead - we were in the process of taking down a tree on our property line - and replied "You have no idea how bad this is going to be."
Most of his clients are dropping him completely. (think landscapers, realtors, etc. Small, local businesses with one or two people running the show, then with a receptionist, accountant, maybe a handfull of workers, etc etc etc. Typical local small businesses). According to this guy, if they're old enough to retire, they're saying "To Heck with this." and getting out. Or, if they're young enough, they're laying off all their workers and going it alone.
My neighbor wasn't 100% sure what he was going to do. And, he's not a guy that's prone to hyperbole, so if he says that he's worried, I'm worried. I've been saving every penny that I can, and I've been working hard to cement myself into my current job, while simultaneously snooping around for other options in case I need a parachute. :-(
I’m more pessimistic about this than before...with the ruling that came out recently, written by Judge Lawrence Silberman, historically one of the most conservative jurists in the country, upholding it as constitutional, that could sway Anthony Kennedy.
I agreed with you as to what would be argued. My point was that the Court is not bound to decide the underlying issue, even if it hears argument on the merits. Here are the orders. Notice the argument that suit is barred by the AIA ...
11-393 ) NAT. FED'N INDEP. BUSINESS V. SEBELIUS, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.
)
11-400 ) FLORIDA, ET AL. V. DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 11-393 is
granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 11-400 is
granted limited to the issue of severability presented by
Question 3 of the petition. The cases are consolidated and a
total of 90 minutes is allotted for oral argument.
11-398 DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL. V. FLORIDA, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In
addition to Question 1 presented by the petition, the parties
are directed to brief and argue the following question:
"Whether the suit brought by respondents to challenge the
minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act,
26 U.S.C. AS:7421(a)." A total of two hours is allotted for oral
argument on Question 1. One hour is allotted for oral argument
on the additional question.
11-400 FLORIDA, ET AL. V. DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
Question 1 presented by the petition.
Conflicting orders is nothing more than a force that augurs in favor of SCOTUS hearing the case and setting a rule. They can punt very well, have been doing it for years.
Exactly. The SCOTUS will not make a difference one way or another. They’ll simply muddy the waters. It is up the us to take our rights back at the ballot box.
I would love to see such an action - see, they got that half right...
You are exactly correct. They’ll sustain a large portion of the law. It’s disgusting that our ‘conservative’ SC Justices aren’t really that into our liberty. Thomas being the exception.
The issue is precedence and how likely are the current Justices to overturn it and restore our liberties?
I disagree. In Supreme Court decisions I have read when a questionable law is found not to have violated the constitution, the justices usually take pains to point out it is an issue that must be decided on a political basis by Congress. That could make the 2012 election a public referendum on Obamacare and if the public is educated about what the program actually contains and the effect it will have on an already over-burdened healthcare system, it could be a republican landslide.
Based on the 11th Circuit Court decision I have no confidence the SC will rule it unconstitutional. Kennedy has all the cover he needs from Silberman to rule in favor of the law.
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.