Supreme Court health care debate: If the law fails, what's next? (Big enviro & labor next?)

Politico ^ | 4/01/12 | JOSH GERSTEIN

[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.

[Libloather]

Leftists in fear. That's a shame.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

“...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.

[dead]

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.

[Dapper 26]

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.

[Sacajaweau]

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.

[Wpin]

Ping for later...

[Gator113]

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

[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.

[Islander7]

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.

[Reily]

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

[B.O. Plenty]

...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.

[Sparticus]

"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.

[Islander7]

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.

[what's up]

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.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

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?

[IronJack]

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.

[Reily]

same here

[MasterGunner01]

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

[marsh2]

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

[Still Thinking]

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.