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

Skip to comments.

Justices Ponder Striking Down Entire Obamacare Package
http://www.newmax.com ^ | March 2012 | Newsman Wires

Posted on 03/28/2012 2:35:59 PM PDT by NKP_Vet

The Supreme Court's conservative justices are hinting that they might have to strike down Obamacare entirely because declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional would require nullifying the entire law.

“The court's conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

Although the court is expected to rule by late June on the fate of the President Obama’s signature legislation, Justice Antonin Scalia hinted that the decision might be a fait accompli even at this point.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," the Times quoted Scalia as saying.

Similarly, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to permit the varied insurance regulations to remain if the mandate were struck down.

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


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: hcr; obamacare
I know Kennedy has sided with the socialists in the past, but will Roberts side with them this time? If he does, chauk it up as another wasted Supreme Court pick by a republican president.
1 posted on 03/28/2012 2:36:02 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

To the best of my knowledge, please correct me if I am wrong, the SCOTUS is no included in the Congressional Exemption from the ACT. As such, the Justices and their families are included in OBAMACARE. That means children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren are subject to the consequences of socialized medicine. Could have quite an effect on a Justice when writing his opinion - - think of what his grandchildren and great-grandchildren may have to endure.


2 posted on 03/28/2012 2:48:38 PM PDT by Mr. Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Here we are at a point in time in the USA where we have to wonder who we are going to select as a new president. I say new because I stand firmly in the belief Obama will be toast come election day 2012. Mitt Romney is the leading candidate for “our” voting block.

Who will he place in the Supreme Court? His history is entirely LIBERAL.


3 posted on 03/28/2012 2:49:38 PM PDT by Michigan Bowhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

,,,, Im betting four aren’t even thinking about striking it down even with the mandate in tact .


4 posted on 03/28/2012 2:58:26 PM PDT by Lionheartusa1 (-: Socialism is the equal distribution of misery :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

,,,, I’m hoping that Roberts is just playing the Devil’s advocate just like the liberal justices do at times . Then they always hold the liberal line in the end .


5 posted on 03/28/2012 3:02:16 PM PDT by Lionheartusa1 (-: Socialism is the equal distribution of misery :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Some really deadly “health-care” stuff is not even in the Health Care law before the Court. Other pieces that will lock the State onto our bank balances and will deny us medical attention at the State’s whim are in the Finance Law and other seemingly unrelated laws. Eliminating the entire Health Care Law will make us feel god but it won’t really reduce the government expropriation of our medical system very much at all.


6 posted on 03/28/2012 3:04:40 PM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

This is 7-2 against.

There are things the libs can get away with in the courts. Something this blantant in the libs trying to obsfucate the Constitution will not fly.

Down in flames.


7 posted on 03/28/2012 3:11:50 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Solyent Pink is Sheeple!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
I know Kennedy has sided with the socialists in the past, but will Roberts side with them this time?

Why do you think he would?

8 posted on 03/28/2012 3:17:15 PM PDT by SandyInSeattle (Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Wright

Muslims are also except, Johovah Witnesses, other religious organizations, and companies like McDonalds, and others, and the majority of unions. So in otherwords if you have the money to pay off Chairman Obama you can get yourself an exception.

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/5195-more-companies-receiving-obamacare-waivers


9 posted on 03/28/2012 3:42:06 PM PDT by NKP_Vet (creep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Wright
the Justices and their families are included in OBAMACARE. That means children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren are subject to the consequences of socialized medicine. Could have quite an effect on a Justice when writing his opinion

Not to mention the death panels!

10 posted on 03/28/2012 3:47:47 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Kill 0bamaCare or it will kill us.


11 posted on 03/28/2012 3:56:02 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

-- James Madison, the Father of the United States Constitution


12 posted on 03/28/2012 4:02:41 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (In self-evident truth, in timeless principle, in the people themselves, lie our republic's only hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

What’s there to ponder? Kick the whole thing and it’s author out for good.


13 posted on 03/28/2012 4:18:34 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I heard Rush say today that if the mandate is found unconstitutional, the court will probably throw the whole thing out. His logic was, can you imagine the nine justices having to go through the entire 2,700 page bill and agreeing on what goes and what stays? Not going to happen. They’ll either leave it all intact (but the mandate is the financial engine to make everything else work) or they’ll throw it all out. We’ll see in June what they decide.....


14 posted on 03/28/2012 4:26:23 PM PDT by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

To God’s ears, please let this be true!


15 posted on 03/28/2012 4:31:57 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

This law did not contain a severability clause. If one part of the law is invalid, the entire act is invalid. If one part gets struck down, the entire Obamacare act is struck down.


16 posted on 03/28/2012 5:34:46 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: EQAndyBuzz

I would love it if you are right.

I believe it will be 5-4. 6-3 Max.


17 posted on 03/28/2012 5:35:58 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 7 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

This law did not contain a severability clause. If one part of the law is invalid, the entire act is invalid. If one part gets struck down, the entire Obamacare act is struck down.


In a rational universe, that would be true.

However, the Sarbaines-Oxley bill was passed without a severability clause, the Supreme Court found one part of it unconstitutional (related to a Panel it set up), but the Supremes left the remainder of the bill in place. I think they invented a new doctrine — implied severability. However, if you look at the legislative history of Obamacare, the severability clause was in an early version, and it was taken out.

On the other hand, Justice Scalia asked if the administration was serious about expecting the Justices (or their law clerks) to go through the 2700 pages, line by line, and decide whether each line should be in or out; and, by alluding to the 8th amendment, he implied this would be “cruel and unusual punishment”.

Judge Vinson noted in his opinion that going through the bill line by line would in fact be legislation, and that was not the job of the court.


18 posted on 03/29/2012 8:46:36 AM PDT by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | 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