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

Skip to comments.

Howard Dean predicts Supreme Court will declare individual mandate unconstitutional
The Daily Caller ^ | 3-26-12 | Jeff Poor

Posted on 03/26/2012 9:16:34 AM PDT by bigbob

On Monday’s “CBS This Morning,” former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean broke with Democratic Party ranks once again on the issue of Obamacare. But this time, he did it in terms of how he thinks the Supreme Court will view the law.

Host Charlie Rose asked Dean, a physician and former Democratic presidential candidate, if he thought the individual mandate would ultimately be declared unconstitutional.

“I actually think that’s what they’re most likely to do before, of course, we’ve heard any arguments,” Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, replied. “I can’t imagine how they’re going to decide this isn’t right yet. And you’ll have lawyers talking about the arcane legal question. But yeah, I don’t believe they’ll support that. And they certainly aren’t going to do it from the bench today.”

“I do believe that it’s likely the individual mandate will be declared unconstitutional,” he continued. “[Justice Anthony] Kennedy will probably side with the four right-wing justices. But I’d be very surprised if they — I think Kennedy will switch sides and it will be 5-4 in favor of severing that finding from the rest of the bill. The question is going to be, is this individual mandate question — can that be considered separately from the rest of the bill? And I think it will be.”

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dean; howarddean; obamacare; scotus
Video at link. The Screamer still struggles to put together a coherent sentence, but the headline certainly will make his phone ring today.

I think (and hope) he will be proven wrong on severability. He is certainly wrong about the need for the individual mandate to be part of Obamacare, without it the whole thing collapses.

1 posted on 03/26/2012 9:16:46 AM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bigbob
the law doesn't work without the mandate, thus it can't be severed from the rest.

If the mandate to buy insurance is removed and the mandate for insurance companies to take people with preexisting conditions remains... then everyone would just drop their insurance and wait until they get sick or hurt to buy it, bankrupting the entire insurance sector overnight.

There is no middle ground on this, either the mandate to buy insurance stands or the mandate to sell to people with preexisting conditions must also go.

2 posted on 03/26/2012 9:22:30 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Go Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

ironically, the SCOTUS striking down the mandate is obama’s best hope for re-election. the mandate goes down, businesses are no longer terrified to hire, a mini-boom in hiring takes place, and enough people are convinced that he is a better candidate than the infinitely weak romney that he squeaks across the finish line first.


3 posted on 03/26/2012 9:24:35 AM PDT by JohnBrowdie (http://forum.stink-eye.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie

[ ironically, the SCOTUS striking down the mandate is obama’s best hope for re-election. the mandate goes down, businesses are no longer terrified to hire, a mini-boom in hiring takes place, and enough people are convinced that he is a better candidate than the infinitely weak romney that he squeaks across the finish line first. ]

I fear you are 100% correct...


4 posted on 03/26/2012 9:36:52 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie
. . . the mandate goes down, businesses are no longer terrified to hire, a mini-boom in hiring takes place, . . .

I may never hire again, but I will certainly not hire under any circumstances until Obama is out of our White House. I won't hire just based on an ObamaCare repeal, not when the source of that power grab is still in our government.

5 posted on 03/26/2012 9:37:16 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie
"...enough people are convinced that he is a better candidate..."

That would be sad. I would hope instead that enough people would realize that if he's reelected he'll be back madder and more ferocious than before. With nothing to lose he'd vent that anger on all of us.

6 posted on 03/26/2012 9:38:16 AM PDT by n230099 ("When no one knows who is armed...everyone is.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
I think Kennedy will switch sides and it will be 5-4 in favor of severing that finding from the rest of the bill.

Almost all other laws now explicitly include severability in their text to protect the majority of it if one page is found unconstitutional, especially with the multi-thousand page omnibus bills. This one intentionally did not include it. (If we had the whole list of amendments on the bill we might even see when it was removed from the template.) How can the Supreme Court find some type of implied severability if it has been intentionally not included?

However anything dealing with Justice Kennedy is an utter crap shoot.

7 posted on 03/26/2012 9:38:48 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (You only have three billion heartbeats in a lifetime.How many does the government claim as its own?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie

Interesting argument - I’d always looked at it the other way around, but you’re right. Just like Obama is doing with Keystone, being in favor of it afte he killed it. Something he inherited from John F Kerry I guess...


8 posted on 03/26/2012 9:39:13 AM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

If the SCOTUS were to let the mandate stand it would be their “bridge too far”.

It would cost ‘em.

That is why I expect it to be struck down. They should also strike down the whole law since the severability clause is not only not there, but was removed from the final version since the whole thing depends on this for funding.


9 posted on 03/26/2012 9:42:19 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie

I’ve been posting since the primary started that we should not nominate a candidate who is ONLY running on fixing the economy, because if Obamacare is overturned, the economy is likely to get a big boost heading into the election. However, a booming economy would probably only make gas prices go higher, which would leave that issue on the table. An overturned Obamacare would probably be a boost for Romney in another way, since the issue of whether or not he supports a federal individual mandate would be off the table. Of course then he’d be expected to be specific and state what, if any, health care reform he did want to put in place to replace Obamacare, and specifics are not his strong suit.


10 posted on 03/26/2012 9:44:52 AM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Does not matter if a law to the left. It will be implemented as a policy.


11 posted on 03/26/2012 9:49:35 AM PDT by edcoil (It is not over until I win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
the law doesn't work without the mandate, thus it can't be severed from the rest.

It's not up to the court to decide if it's a good law, just if it's unconstitutional or not. Congress can pass a law requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions if they want. The fact that it would bankrupt the insurance industry doesn't make it unconstitional. That would probably get Obama where he wants to go faster, allowing him to declare health insurance has failed and it's time to go single payer.

12 posted on 03/26/2012 9:49:39 AM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

No way will the SC declare Obamacare unconstitutional. They will back off with some kind of technicality and kiss America off. If it does happen it will be by vote of 5 to 4. The 4 are close to Marxist beliefs and have no idea what the Constitution is about - freedom.


13 posted on 03/26/2012 9:51:55 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
But, but, but I thought after we were forced to buy health care liberals would force us to buy DVD 'classes' on Civil Rights according to the Black Panther Party.... and "How Liberal Elites Make Your Life Better" - with a mandatory 'test' at the end.... and, and, and....
14 posted on 03/26/2012 9:52:30 AM PDT by GOPJ (Democrat-Media Complex - buried stories and distorted facts... freeper 'andrew' Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
"That would probably get Obama where he wants to go faster, allowing him to declare health insurance has failed and it's time to go single payer.

Best response of the day. The administration wins either way. The ultimate goal of the existing law was to create such a monstrosity that the only way out is a clear cut health care tax and single payor. Even if the entire law is thrown out, I doubt the GOP-E would hold their ground and do nothing. The One has learned triangulation very well from the master, Slick Willie.

15 posted on 03/26/2012 10:03:50 AM PDT by buckalfa (Confused and Bewildered With a Glass Half Empty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
America's Constitution was intended to put "chains" (see Jefferson) on the power of elected officials in government to interfere in the lives of "the People" who, under that Constitution, were (and are) their masters.

America's Constitution did not make elected officials masters over "the People."

Hopefully, the attention to Supreme Court reflection and decision making on this critical point during this week will create a new enthusiasm and pursuit of the Founders' Constitution, as debated and adopted by them for the protection of individuals against would-be "rulers" in government.

Thanks to Divine Providence and the new technologies, every American with a computer and internet access can read for themselves almost every word of the Founders, as well as the wisdom writings from which they derived their ideas of liberty.

It is high time for a public understanding and discussion of those ideas which are essential to liberty in a free society. "Progressive" know-it-alls have, for too long, dominated the discourse--especially in public institutions.

Thomas Jefferson, that great intellectual who was chosen to write a people's Declaration of Independence from a government which assumed powers to spend, tax, and overpower citizens, in his "Notes on Religion," made an observation which, while they were directed toward oppressive ecclesiastical rules, seem to be pertinent to the current matter:

"Notes on Religion, 1776 (Ford 2: 252-68)
"The care of every man’s soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or estate, which more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he shall not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills…"

Today, however, we have elected officials who try to convince us that they are both qualified and entitled to do so. Should we not question their motives?

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewis

16 posted on 03/26/2012 10:06:01 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

If Howard Dean thinks it will be defeated that means it will be approved 9-0.


17 posted on 03/26/2012 10:11:44 AM PDT by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

I don’t see how they keep the law since they left out the non severabilty clause once the mandate is found unconstitutional? I also do not think that this being gone will save Obama for re election not with grocery prices so high and gas prices too.I think in the next month we are going to start seeing the unemployment rise due to gas prices.People don’t have extra to spend so business suffers because of that.


18 posted on 03/26/2012 10:50:42 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Despite the famous scream, Howard Dean is far from the worst of the lunatic leftists. The scream actually was manufactured—and played dozens of times in the first 24 hours—by the left wing press, because they wanted to get him out of the way for candidates that they prefered.

Howard Dean, while he was governor of Vermont, actually cleaned up the huge economic mess left by his Democrat predecessors, and was widely disliked for that by liberals in the Socialist Republic of Vermont.

In any case, I certainly hope he’s right. Having him say this gives the Court a little help from what they may fear most—making a constitutional decision and then having a political storm descend on them from the lunatic left.

The last time they did the right thing on such a delicate issue was Chad Wars, and they’re still stinging from that.


19 posted on 03/26/2012 11:24:10 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

We were told 2 years ago that NOTHING in this bill could be changed or altered.

All or Nothing is what I get from that.

Which of the 2 new women on the SC is the one which should recuse herself because she argued & formed the bill in the first place? Sotomayer or Kagan???


20 posted on 03/26/2012 12:12:05 PM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Dictator Baby-Doc Barack has ALWAYS ignored The US Constitution, ESPECIALLY with Obama”care.”

The cancer of Obama”care” now has invaded World Finances as Obama last week choose a “Public health expert” for the World Bank Presidency.

Romney has promised to “Repeal and REPLACE” Obama”care.”

Senator (R Tn) Son-of-a-Mitch McConnell has promised to “Repeal and REPLACE” Obama”care.”
_______

The major problem with THE NINE SUPREMES is that they are chosen for political reasons by the POTUS, and then they vote as an un-accountable democracy, for a Nation that is NOT a Democracy, but a REPUBLIC.

As a result, THE NINE SUPREMES commonly vote 5 to 4 on most issues. Constitutionality is seldom a consideration, and their up-coming ruling on Obama”care” will prove my point.

Now is the time to stand and deliver to address our grievances to the dictates of the Left.

Oppose the dictates of Dictator Baby-Doc Barack!

Our ONLY chance to ABOLISH Obama”care” rests with THE NINE SUPREMES, because Romney will be defeated by Obama.

IMHO, if Romney is anointed as the RNC Nominee, THE main issue in the National Election, Obama”care,” will be taken off the campaign table. Hence, Romney will not only lose, but suffer another crushing, and sadly typical, RINO defeat.

To those who want poster ideas, here are a few ideas for demonstration posters:

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

Obama”care” was 2700 pages long, and is still being written, but not by Congress: witness the forced contraception coverage recently added by HHS Regulators.

Obama”care” has caused “The Catholic Spring.”

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.


21 posted on 03/26/2012 12:57:18 PM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

How come every time there’s a controversial Supreme Court case the media always comes out saying it’s NOT political, it’s about the Law?
If it’s NOT political, how come they always come down to a 5-4 decision. And you can usually predict which judges rule in which way.

Why?

Because it IS political. They make up their mind on a case, and then they find reasons why they ruled that way, instead of the other way around.


22 posted on 03/26/2012 1:23:41 PM PDT by skinndogNN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Howard Dean is an idiot, that statement proves it.


23 posted on 03/27/2012 12:09:17 AM PDT by itsahoot (Tag lines are a waste of bandwidth, as are most of my comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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