Skip to comments.Supreme Court health care debate: If the law fails, what's next? (Big enviro & labor next?)
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 Obamas 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 ...
“...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.
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.
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.
Time to get rid of government unions, too.....particularly teachers to start.
Ping for later...
The Skittles will riot in the streets..... and another angel will get it’s wings.
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.
Isn’t it the truth!
Professionally most problems I deal with have their root in actions by the USG in solving other problems.
...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.
I say bring it! It can't happen soon enough.
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.
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.
What's the downside?
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.
The real situation is: Federal Government solutions to the problems the same government determined to be “problems”.
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; ]
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
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.
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.
Those who support the law say if it’s killed it will radically reign in federal power. That says it all right there.