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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court sets Obama healthcare arguments
Reuters/Yahoo ^ | 12/19/11 | James Vicini

Posted on 12/19/2011 11:43:56 AM PST by markomalley

Oral arguments on President Barack Obama's sweeping U.S. healthcare overhaul will last 5-1/2 hours spread over three days from March 26-28, the Supreme Court said on Monday.

The Supreme Court last month agreed to hear the 5-1/2 hours of oral arguments, one of the lengthiest arguments in recent years. There have been similar marathon sessions in a handful of big cases dating back over the past 70 years.

The court said it would hear one hour of arguments on March 26 on whether the legal challenges to the requirement that all Americans buy insurance must wait until after that part of the law has taken effect in 2014.

At issue is a federal law, the Anti-Injunction Act, and whether the requirement that Americans buy insurance or pay a penalty is effectively a tax covered by that law and can only be challenged after the penalty has been imposed.

The court said it would hear two hours of arguments on March 27 on the constitutional issue at the heart of the battle -- whether Congress overstepped its powers by adopting the insurance purchase requirement known as the individual mandate.

(Excerpt) Read more at old.news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: bhohealthcare; choosewisely; commiecare; donttreadonme; healthinsurance; individualmandate; obama; obamacare; scotus; socialism; socialisthealthcare

1 posted on 12/19/2011 11:43:59 AM PST by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Wish they could televise their most important case ever.


2 posted on 12/19/2011 11:49:14 AM PST by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AU72
Has Kagan recused yet?

Or, will this just be a rubber-stamp and ignore the Conflict of Interests of her particiapating in this Case, and giving the 1-finger salute to The Law regarding Recusal?

3 posted on 12/19/2011 11:51:55 AM PST by traditional1 (Free speech for me.....not for thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

I was at the gym this morning. An elderly man, bent over with scoliosis, was pushing his walker by me. Affixed to the frame was a large sign that said, in bright red, “I DON’T LIKE OBAMACARE.”


4 posted on 12/19/2011 11:54:44 AM PST by Ax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
The Supreme Court last month agreed to hear the 5-1/2 hours of oral arguments, one of the lengthiest arguments in recent years.

Please take another 1/2 hour and define "Natural Born Citizen" while you are still somewhat lucid.

5 posted on 12/19/2011 12:24:18 PM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Maybe I’m wrong but I think they are much less likely to strike it down if they wait to pass an actual ruling in 2014 when it is in full effect.


6 posted on 12/19/2011 12:29:55 PM PST by formosa (Formosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Regardless of what happens, repeal it in full in January-February of 2013.


7 posted on 12/19/2011 12:38:36 PM PST by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

As is the case with this bunch, any rule of law, constitutional requirements, ethics, moral standards, are all thrown out the window. State-run, lame-stream, liberal-left, communist-progressive media WILL NOT make an issue of the Kagen participation in the hearings and decision. They are all in this together to f - - k America.


8 posted on 12/19/2011 1:22:41 PM PST by Mr. Wright (N\)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
How about we just get this over with by simply asking de facto Chief Justice Kennedy for his opinion?
9 posted on 12/19/2011 1:30:24 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
If this goes the wrong way, as it may very well do, what will we be required to purchase next?

Cars, Homes, Gov't Services, Dues, ? .....what?

10 posted on 12/19/2011 1:44:09 PM PST by topfile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Obama”care” was robo-signed by Congress, and is therefore illegal.

Obama”care” reduces competition, and therefore is illegal by the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law.

Obama”care” is designed to be a US Federal Government monopoly, with no competition.

Obama”care” also is illegal according to the US Constitution, because it violates our freedom of choice.

Will THE NINE SUPREMES notice any of these three violations? I seriously doubt it.

Impeached Bill Clinton proved that the US President is above US Federal Law, so anything that the President wants he gets, regardless of the Federal Laws that he has violated.


11 posted on 12/19/2011 2:09:13 PM PST by Graewoulf (( obama"care" violates the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND is illegal by the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf
Obama”care” reduces competition, and therefore is illegal by the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law.

Obamacare is a federal law and so can't violate another federal law. OTOH, it does grossly violate the Constitution.

12 posted on 12/19/2011 2:15:51 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

The Democrats have not been bothered by violating the US Constitution, even though THEIR White House resident has sworn to protect it.

BTW, isn’t that the logic behind the “Move On” organization: pass illegal Federal Laws, and MOVE ON to passing more illegal laws, because when it is a Federal it can’t be illegal, just Move on.


13 posted on 12/19/2011 2:27:45 PM PST by Graewoulf (( obama"care" violates the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND is illegal by the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AU72

Yea this is a taxpayer funded issue so we should have the right to watch the proceedings.

It will be a heck of a day when the individual mandate is STRUCK DOWN!


14 posted on 12/19/2011 2:54:15 PM PST by JosephMama (Who to choose, who to choose...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: topfile

You’re already required to pay union dues in some states, like CA, even if you are not a member. The “logic” is they have influence over your wages and benefits package thus the dues are compulsory and taking from your paycheck before it even gets to your hands.


15 posted on 12/19/2011 3:07:23 PM PST by newzjunkey (Republicans will find a way to reelect Obama and Speaker Pelosi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ax

Now that is cool. There’s a guy with some spunk, so much so that I find him a hero of sorts.

Next time you see him, you stop him and tell him DoughtyOne from California thinks he’s a sharp fellow, and wishes to thank him and congratulate him.


16 posted on 12/19/2011 3:22:38 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Why back in '88, Conservatives backed Gore in Texas. What Reagan revolution? What laegacy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: topfile
If this goes the wrong way, as it may very well do, what will we be required to purchase next?

Cars, Homes, Gov't Services, Dues, ? .....what?

My next purchase would be a one way ticket to another nation where I would have a fair chance to flourish.


17 posted on 12/19/2011 3:46:34 PM PST by magooey (The Mandate of Heaven resides in the hearts of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

You got it, D1!


18 posted on 12/19/2011 4:18:25 PM PST by Ax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: traditional1
I believe the people behind this regime fully intend to ignore the rule of law and use unions and the federal bureaucracy to take control and destroy the rule of law and throw out the constitution in the name of some sort of concocted "emergency."

There is an effort by some of the behind the scenes operators to unionize the armed forces, thereby putting the military under the operational control of their union bosses. They'll start with the enlisted ranks and, if they can gain control of them, the next step will be to have a work stoppage or some sort of work action that will tie the hands of the commanding officers (via a court order issued by one of their allied federal judges).

19 posted on 12/19/2011 5:02:20 PM PST by oneolcop (Lead, Follow or Get the Hell Out of the Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ax

Great. Thank you.


20 posted on 12/19/2011 5:09:29 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Why back in '88, Conservatives backed Gore in Texas. What Reagan revolution? What laegacy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

LOL


21 posted on 12/19/2011 5:13:52 PM PST by Alissa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; OldDeckHand; tired_old_conservative; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; ...
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

22 posted on 12/19/2011 7:42:02 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topfile

If it goes the “wrong” way, I’ll be purchasing some tar and feathers and a ticket to Capitol Hill where this monstrosity was invented.


23 posted on 12/19/2011 8:00:01 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

You forget Obama pissed off the SCOTUS during his state of the union lawyers like elephants do not forget.......


24 posted on 12/19/2011 9:18:51 PM PST by straps (Electric Jack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: straps

Great point.

However, Chairman Obama has shown NO respect for the US Constitution since his birth in Kenya.

His High Poo-Bahness probably views, (with his typical arrogant scorn), THE NINE SUPREMES as irrelevant to the harm he has been chosen to do to America.

BTW, FDR tried to pack the US Supreme Court to insure that the USA became a Socialist Nation very quickly. Now that we are FINALLY the Union of Socialist States in Amerika (USSA), maybe Dictator Obama will simply abolish the 4 th Branch of Government?


25 posted on 12/19/2011 9:35:48 PM PST by Graewoulf (( obama"care" violates the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND is illegal by the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: topfile

Volts.


26 posted on 12/20/2011 7:22:54 AM PST by dools0007world
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

Thanks for the post, but I am not familiar with Kagan’s Conflict of Interest regarding this case, and so likewise don’t understand why The Law regarding Recusal would require her to not participate in this decision. Would you please explain so I can point this out to others who, like me, are not so well informed?


27 posted on 12/20/2011 1:04:24 PM PST by juno67 (a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

What do they possibly have to do that they set those specific dates for such a huge case with huge implications?


28 posted on 12/20/2011 4:01:18 PM PST by wastedyears (Not too long you devious little parathyroid. Soon I'll be rid of you and I'll be free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: juno67

Kagen was working in Solictor General’s office, advising on Obamacare pending Legislation, and LIED to the Senate during Confirmation Hearings, saying she had NO PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT in Obamacare. Subsequent emails discovered AFTER her Appointment showed she was directly involved in advising the Office of The President.


29 posted on 12/20/2011 5:27:16 PM PST by traditional1 (Free speech for me.....not for thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: traditional1
Those who assailed Newt Gingrich for his proposals to curb the excesses of the federal judiciary ought to reconsider their charges in the context of Kagan's refusal to recuse herself.

There is nothing short of impeachment which can require her to recuse herself unless one begins to look at the sort of remedies proposed by Gingrich. The arrogance of Kagan in declining recuse herself, indeed, the arrogance of Obama is appointing her further supports the view that the federal judiciary has grown so arrogant as to require a rebalancing of the powers of the four branches of government. In case you were wondering, I include the states as the fourth branch which is a rather quaint view considering the court's rulings for 75 years or so.


30 posted on 12/20/2011 7:31:00 PM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; onyx; STARWISE; maggief; Liz; penelopesire

Almost missed this. Wish there was something we could do (beside pray) between now and then to assure an outcome we can all LIVE with.


31 posted on 12/21/2011 10:57:25 AM PST by hoosiermama (We need more Jobs.....Steve Jobs....entrepreneurs and creators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

“Obama”care” was robo-signed by Congress, and is therefore illegal.”

Would it have made you happier to be signed by someone not constitutionally eligible to be POTUS? SCOTUS seems to have ignored that minor issue as well...


32 posted on 12/21/2011 12:47:50 PM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DrC

“Happy” to me is a small, frugal, Federal Government.

For the last 80 years, we have become a political system that has degenerated to a level that makes it very easy for an incompetent alien to become our Dictator. It is all well and good to blame Chairman Obama for finding the soft underbelly of our degenerated political system. I mainly blame his supporters.

However, no dictator has power without the active support of others. The Socialist-Democrat wing of the Democrat Party have been essential to Bolshevik Obama’s success in destroying America’s banks, hospitals, doctors, insurance companies, large companies, small business, and now his final goal, destruction of the middle class.

The basic enemy to America is the idea system that supports the values that enabled Bolshevik Obama to destroy as much of America as he has.

Princes Nancy “Bottleneck” Pelosi famously said about the 2,000 page Obama”care” bill: “We have to pass the bill, so we can find out what is in it.” RINO Boehner has replaced Pelosi, but fails to understand that the 15 Trillion dollar is the end of the financial “road” for America. ( One bottleneck removed.)

Senator Harry “Bottleneck” Reid is the leader of the Socialist-Democrat Party, and as such is the primary enabler of spendaholic, incompetent, Chairman Obama. (One bottleneck still in place.)

Replacing “Bottleneck” Reid would help, but the idea system of the Socialist-Democrat Party will still be a major counter-culture force. It is essential that that idea is defeated.

Structural changes must be made, but it probably will take a long, drawn-out Constitutional Convention to achieve a much-weakened power of the President, a mechanism to over-ride bottleneck positions such as the Speaker of the House, and the Senate Majority Leader, such as a 60 day limit on delaying a Bill sent to the other house before it is debated for no less than 1 week.

When Congress stopped using the “system of checks and balances,” it has been a downhill slide ever since.

Thus, what we have is a tyrannical, debate-less,budget-less, winner-take-all, bankrupt Nation where NO elected politician has the courage to stand up and be held accountable.

BTW, if any of this is what you also have observed, then pass it on. That would make me VERY happy!

Merry Christmas!


33 posted on 12/21/2011 8:31:12 PM PST by Graewoulf (( obama"care" violates the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND is illegal by the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: topfile

broccoli


34 posted on 12/22/2011 8:15:42 AM PST by dervish (female candidates: the last frontier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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