Skip to comments.Why the Supreme Court Will Strike Down All of Obamacare
Posted on 04/06/2012 6:24:41 AM PDT by libstripper
Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the Obamacare law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, Im confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. (emphasis added)
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
I agree that automating records is a good thing. However, I don’t think automation should be forced by government on the medical profession or any other.
“Even Kagan and Sotomayor should know enough about the law to vote Obamacare down. If they dont they have no business being Supreme Court justices.”
Right, but so?
Guess We Can’t
C’mon, getting the thing passed took an enormous effort & cost - no way would subsequent vacating thereof by SCOTUS be part of some nefarious plan to make it into a 2012 election issue. The whole point of most of it kicking in after the election was so voters & SCOTUS wouldn’t notice how horrible it is; that’s not consistent with some scheme to get SCOTUS to overturn it pre-election.
“The big win of my administration was overturned by the SC for you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-us levels of moronic. Vote for me.”
You do realize that the whole point of incentivising adoption of electronic medical records was so the gov’t could get its hands on your 4-th Amendment protected private information, right? once they have the details of your health, they can tax & regulate YOU far beyond what Orwell imagined. Really good reforms were not included, and Congress (as usual) is exempt from the whole thing (huh, wonder why). A smidgeon of good does not justify the overwhelming bad.
Leave it to Obama to shove so much wrong into a portion of one sentence. It wasn’t a strong majority by any stretch and EVERY bill is passed by a democratically elected Congress!
Absolutely spot on analysis IMHO!
Thanks for the post!
RJ says, "Obamas attack on the SCOTUS wasn't done in ignorance of the law but to convince the ignorant . . . ."
Inasmuch as the complete statement, broken down, point by point, failed to meet a standard of truth on any level, just how ignorant does he believe American voters are?
On the other hand, where are the articulate voices among the potential GOP candidates who can and will inform and educate the electorate about these things?
Opportunities are being missed for a "teaching moment" for the benefit of keeping the flame of liberty burning for future generations.
Because the courts can’t judge the rules of the rules of the House and Senate. The House and Senate of the time considered the bill passed. The fact that the rules were twisted is outside the jurisdiction of the courts. The Constitution gives each house of the Congress sole jurisdiction over it’s own rules.
I agree completely.
I particularly like all the citations of precedent.
As Scalia joked, the 8th ammendment prevents the SC from having to read it!
I posted this in another thread related to CommieCare:
Ken Cucinelli, Virgina AJ was on EWTNs The World Over with Raymond Arroyo.
He has been preparing briefs, if not actually arguing the case, but he has been in the Supreme Court Hearing Room itself with the Justices.
Cucinelli: I was mildly optimistic going in, but now I am much more convinced, after two sessions, that we have the 5 votes necessary to strike this down.
Raymond: The whole thing?
Cucinelli: Yes, the whole bill.
In the end, it is up to "We the People" and the guardians stand vigilant!
When we have four insane anti Constitutionalists liberals anything can happen.
Of interest to me was the repeated mention of Justice Kennedy in opposition to other cases. The author pretty well puts to sleep the thought Kennedy is the swing vote. He is not.
Several did indeed comment
McConnell first comes to mind
What rose-colored glasses do you wear? (LOL) And that is what will be absolutely fascinating thing to me, how Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsberg, Kagan, and the "Wise Latina" construct their dissenting opinion. Their dissent will reveal a lot of very, very scary stuff about how they capriciously liberate the Constitution from its original intent.
I suppose the employment records of the University of Chicago have gone the way of his transcripts, passport records, Selective Service records, Social Security records, birth records, parents’ marriage and divorce records, etc.
In reality, the question is not whay he does, but why does he do it? He knows he can get away with it, but how does he know this? Is he secure in his knowledge that the American people have been so dumbed down by the media and educational system that they do not know how the Country is supposed to orerate, or does he know that the American people have lost the ability to form individual thoughts on their own, so they must be fed by the media?
There are some reason that he continues doing these thinga and stupidity is not one of them.
Even if shot down...the RinoCracy will be back at us with another gussied up piece of legislation attempting to render American Citizens their subjects. Prolly some environmental nonsense....
It doesn't matter if the decision is 9-0 or 5-4. If it goes down, it goes down.
Sometimes, the justices will vote with the minority just to write an opinion basically outlining where the losing party went wrong. The fact that it is going down gives them cover.
Its just like Congress in that regard.
By how much it goes down doesn't matter; it is only important THAT it goes down. The rest is fluff.
Excellent analysis in this Forbes article. It’s a must read.
Here’s the key to why the author says it will be struck down as unconstitutional:
“The reason that at least 5 Justices are going to find the laws individual mandate unconstitutional is that it is contrary to the fundamental federalism architecture of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the federal government is an authority of limited, enumerated, delegated powers. All other powers of government are reserved for the states, including the broad authority labeled the police power. That is the power to compel individuals to take specific actions for the public good, such as actions for the public health like vaccinations or quarantines, or obtaining car insurance, or attending school. Notice that all such laws are adopted at the state or local level. (Any federal laws compelling action are based on specific delegated powers other than the Commerce Clause, like those providing for national defense, or taxation).
The power to compel the purchase of health insurance for the public good, as in Obamacares individual mandate, is a function of the police power reserved to the states, and denied to the federal government by the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents. If the federal government is now to hold a national police power, then the constitutional framework of federalism, with limited, enumerated powers delegated to the federal government, and the remaining powers of government retained by the states, would be obliterated.”
B U M P
“We are a republic. What is the issue?”
For me, the issue is that the President of this country doesn’t seem to know that.
He was threatening the USSC.
Thanks for the ping!
My feeling about computerized patient records the government can access is just like my feeling about baggage the TSA can access out of my presence, since those thugs have stolen from my baggage on two successive Christmas trips. If there were any assurance that any access wold be legitimate, then I’d not complain; but there isn’t and the actual facts show the primary reason for unsupervised access is illegitimate and illegal.
The author did a outstanding job of explaining the 10th ammendment.
I have a question for anyone who knows.
Where can a person find details on the medical industry takeover bill?
I hear a detail here and there, but is there a summary of the 2700 page monstrosity?
Thanks for the help in advance.