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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court health care debate: If the law fails, what's next? (Big enviro & labor next?)
Politico ^ | 4/01/12 | JOSH GERSTEIN

Posted on 04/01/2012 11:11:09 AM PDT by Libloather

Supreme Court health care debate: If the law fails, what's next?
By JOSH GERSTEIN | 4/1/12 7:01 AM EDT

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on President Barack Obama’s health care law, but court watchers already are handicapping the domino effect if it falls.

If the justices knock out key parts of the law or bring down the whole thing, the reverberations could be felt across the legal landscape for generations to come, radically reining in the scope of federal power, according to supporters of the law and others who closely track the high court.

And if the justices decide the individual mandate is a constitutional overreach, these observers say, federal labor and environmental laws could be the next on the firing line.

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


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: commiecare; court; healthcare; scotus; scotusobamacare; supreme
Leftists in fear. That's a shame.
1 posted on 04/01/2012 11:11:20 AM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

“...for generations to come.”

What utter nonsense. The end of Socialized Medicine might just be the spark for congress to realize this is not their turf.


2 posted on 04/01/2012 11:14:16 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Beware the Sweater Vest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
I think the health care law finally went too far. If they overturn it, we'll know where the current SC draws the line in the sand.

The line is way way too far down the road towards an omnipotent federal government, but at least its a line.

They won't start changing a bunch of other federal programs though. The line will move only when the makeup of the court changes, and the direction the line moves will be determined by who is elected president.

3 posted on 04/01/2012 11:15:45 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I’m reserving judgement about the SCOTUS decision on ObamaCare. If a substantial portion of it is not eliminated, I’ll be looking for another country of residence. The USA will no longer exist as an affordable place to live. It will become Detroit X 100.


4 posted on 04/01/2012 11:19:40 AM PDT by Dapper 26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
We need to get rid of some of these FEDERAL Public Agencies. In many cases they usurp states' rights and have "strings" attached.

Time to get rid of government unions, too.....particularly teachers to start.

5 posted on 04/01/2012 11:20:03 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Ping for later...


6 posted on 04/01/2012 11:32:12 AM PDT by Wpin ("I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The Skittles will riot in the streets..... and another angel will get it’s wings.


7 posted on 04/01/2012 11:35:04 AM PDT by Gator113 (** President Newt Gingrich-"Our beloved republic deserves nothing less." ~Just livin' life, my way~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Say what you will about Bush the Elder, but he gave us Justice Thomas who is dragging the SC to the right as much as a single judge possibly can.
8 posted on 04/01/2012 11:39:33 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

No one wants to address the Fed Government’s role (cause) of high medical costs. The problem was created be government intervention and will NOT be cured by more of the same.


9 posted on 04/01/2012 11:40:01 AM PDT by Islander7 (There is no septic system so vile, so filthy, the left won't drink from to further their agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Islander7

Isn’t it the truth!
Professionally most problems I deal with have their root in actions by the USG in solving other problems.


10 posted on 04/01/2012 11:42:52 AM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
...our freedom and future prosperity is, as we speak, in the hands of ONE old wishy-washy man...

...how despicable is that?....I never thought that this day would come when our peace and prosperity are in the hands of ONE old, bald, friggin LAWYER!

It is truly a maddening situation, and one which could ultimately lead to CWII.

Nobody knows what will happen if the SCOTUS rules one way or the other...maybe nothing, maybe everything......but the fact remains that a long gone Congress has put us into this mess, and nothing bad has happened to any of them except that some lost their positions.

11 posted on 04/01/2012 11:45:00 AM PDT by B.O. Plenty (Elections have consequences....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
"Oh, noes... if de trow healfcares out we be right back to the ebil, nasty, Lochner times."

I say bring it! It can't happen soon enough.

12 posted on 04/01/2012 11:47:41 AM PDT by Sparticus (Tar and feathers for the next dumb@ss Republican that uses the word bipartisanship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reily

Prior to Medicare, there were hundreds of private and charity hospitals all across the nation. Large corporations often built and staffed clinics or small hospitals for their employees. I was born in such a facility; Masonite Clinic, in Laurel, MS. Government intervention, killed those facilities.


13 posted on 04/01/2012 11:51:09 AM PDT by Islander7 (There is no septic system so vile, so filthy, the left won't drink from to further their agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
This story...pure propoganda. It's a setup up to lay the ground work for the upcoming liberal "the court is political and is out to get you" mantra.

If the SC strikes down this law, that IN NO WAY paves the way for the court to rule on other Gov't programs as they are stipulating in this story. The mandate in this law is the singular problem...that's not found in other programs.

But the left wants to circumvent the blame which will be heading Obama's way and shift it to the "political" court in order to scare people...good election propoganda.

14 posted on 04/01/2012 11:51:33 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
If the justices knock out key parts of the law or bring down the whole thing, the reverberations could be felt across the legal landscape for generations to come, radically reining in the scope of federal power...

What's the downside?

15 posted on 04/01/2012 11:59:46 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
If the justices knock out key parts of the law or bring down the whole thing, the reverberations could be felt across the legal landscape for generations to come, radically reining in the scope of federal power

It took the courts to expand those powers. It will take the court to roll them back. But once that is done -- IF that is done -- we may have some semblance of our republic back. If not, we continue our drift toward failure, just another empire that grew, suffocated, and died of Good Intentions.

16 posted on 04/01/2012 12:04:01 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Islander7

same here


17 posted on 04/01/2012 12:15:51 PM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The real situation is: Federal Government solutions to the problems the same government determined to be “problems”.


18 posted on 04/01/2012 12:16:12 PM PDT by MasterGunner01 (11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I would like the court to take on the separation of powers issues. This paper http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2012/03/21/a-voice-for-local-government-in-our-national-forests/ shows how international soft law implemented through Clinton Executive Orders and Gore initiatives contravened Congressional statutory law in the management of our National Forests to the severe economic detriment of rural forest areas. (This is based on the Convention on Biodiversity never ratified by Congress.)

This testimony of Attorney George Mannina http://naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/ManninaTestimony03.22.12.pdf shows how Obama’s National Ocean Policy (based on the Law of the Sea Treaty we never ratified) will supercede Congressional statutory law. [Watch hearing webcast at http://resources.edgeboss.net/wmedia/resources/112/2012_03_22_fwoia.wvx at 27:13-32:25, 40:50-44:11, (Rep. Duncan 1:01:19-1:05:47); 1:07:30-1:11:07; 1:29:46-1:34:30; 1:34:40-1:36:36; ]

Executive Order 13547 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-stewardship-ocean-our-coasts-and-great-lakes

Loving v. United States (94-1966), 517 U.S. 748 (1996)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1966.ZO.html on separation of powers


19 posted on 04/01/2012 12:20:40 PM PDT by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
If the justices knock out key parts of the law or bring down the whole thing, the reverberations could be felt across the legal landscape for generations to come, radically reining in the scope of federal power, according to supporters of the law and others who closely track the high court. Even the supporters of the law admit it would be good to strike it down.
20 posted on 04/01/2012 1:00:46 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
Say what you will about Bush the Elder, but he gave us Justice Thomas who is dragging the SC to the right as much as a single judge possibly can.

By far my favorite justice. The left obsesses about Scalia, and he's OK, but he's more of an authoritarian conservative, whereas Thomas just wants to limit the government to the powers granted it, regardless of whose ox is getting gored in a particular case.

21 posted on 04/01/2012 1:04:22 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

I admire Scalia, I still think he has the best legal mind on the court. What I’m fed up with is having this sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. Kennedy. Which way is he going to decide? This one not-to-remarkable justice is actually the most powerful man on the court. We desperately need one more strong conservative and that is one of the biggest reasons we have to give the bum’s rush to 0bama.


22 posted on 04/01/2012 2:33:51 PM PDT by beelzepug ("Blind obedience to arbitrary rules is a sign of mental illness")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Those who support the law say if it’s killed it will radically reign in federal power. That says it all right there.


23 posted on 04/01/2012 6:44:38 PM PDT by Terry Mross ("It happened. And we let it happen." - Peter Griffin, Family Guy)
[ 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