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 ...
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.
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.
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.
[ 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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Does not matter if a law to the left. It will be implemented as a policy.
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.
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.
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.
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
If Howard Dean thinks it will be defeated that means it will be approved 9-0.
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.
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.
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???
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.