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

Skip to comments.

Judgment Day Draws Nigh for Obamacare
American Spectator ^ | 6.15.12 | DAVID CATRON

Posted on 06/15/2012 11:47:00 AM PDT by kingattax

The Supreme Court will hand down its Obamacare ruling during the week of June 25, and Nostradamus himself would hesitate to make a prediction about the particulars of what will inevitably be a controversial decision. Nonetheless, it's difficult to imagine that the Court will leave what Justice Scalia called "the heart" of the law standing.

That the individual mandate is in genuine peril was made abundantly clear during last March's oral arguments, when Justice Kennedy asked the Solicitor General, "Do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?"

Coming from Kennedy, widely considered the Court's sole remaining swing vote, that query completely unmanned the law's advocates.

(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 06/15/2012 11:47:07 AM PDT by kingattax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kingattax
I don't know if an adverse ruling by the Supreme Court will be the death of Obama care or not. What if he does what Andrew Jackson did after the Supreme Court ruled against his removal of the five tribes from the southeast? Jackson's ethnic cleansing of the the Southeast. Jackson said that the Court had ruled, but now let them enforce the ruling. He then marched the five tribes to Oklahoma anyway.
Now that Obama has pretty much rendered the Congress irrelevant, I would submit that the Supreme Court may next.
2 posted on 06/15/2012 11:58:01 AM PDT by Tupelo (TeaParty member, but no longer a Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

Maybe he’ll declare the SC in recess, so their ruling is invalid.


3 posted on 06/15/2012 12:02:46 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

The result would be chaos; the government would have a hard time enforcing any of the financial provisions. No Court would punish a person who refused to pay money as directed. Individuals could sue anyone who attempted to collect money for the government for acting without authority. Any government official who attempted to enforce the statute might be personally subject to a lawsuit since they would be acting without color of legal authority.


4 posted on 06/15/2012 12:03:02 PM PDT by henkster (Wanted: Politicians willing to say "No" to people. No experience required.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo
What if he does what Andrew Jackson did after the Supreme Court ruled against his removal of the five tribes from the southeast? Jackson's ethnic cleansing of the the Southeast. Jackson said that the Court had ruled, but now let them enforce the ruling. He then marched the five tribes to Oklahoma anyway.

Jackson was not involved. The State of Georgia was doing the removal. Jackson's actual statement was "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," (i.e., the Court had no power over Georgia, and Jackson had no interest in using federal force to intervene).

5 posted on 06/15/2012 12:15:12 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can't be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kingattax
When I read article like this, it warms my heart. I just hope and pray all of obamacare is thrown out.

One thing that concerns me is how it is possible for a group of people (Senate Rats) to go against public opinion, using illegal tactics when they knew that they could not override a filibuster, and then take that vote before the new Senator from Massachusetts could be seated (who was being heldup from taking his seat after he won the election by the Rat governor, until after obammacare was voted upon).

The Rats also refused to include any Republicans in the creation and/or forming of the bill, which indicated their total disregard for any sense of bipartisanship.

The Senate Rats were hellbent on ramming this bill down the American public’s throat. The Rats are hellbent on power, the public and the Republic be damned.

6 posted on 06/15/2012 12:18:55 PM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo
I don't know if an adverse ruling by the Supreme Court will be the death of Obama care or not.

An adverse ruling against Obamacare may result in the death of the Supreme Court.

7 posted on 06/15/2012 12:26:31 PM PDT by Boston Blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

Obama has defied courts before (lifting the drilling moratorium, etc.) and while I think the bureaucracy will pretend they didn’t hear anything, the administration is likely to try to make this a campaign issue and a call to rally the troops while, behind the scenes, they try to still implement as much as they can.


8 posted on 06/15/2012 12:41:12 PM PDT by OrangeHoof (Our economy won't heal until one particular black man is unemployed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

I fear the GOP more than I fear the Democrats. Even if the law is thrown out in total, their are idiot RINO GOP asshats taht are likely to try to save parts of Obamacare they like.

END IT! DON’T MEND IT!

They can always pass very specific health care laws as needed after Obamacare is wiped out but repeal the ENTIRE THING. We still don’t know what all is in that corpulent 3000 page monstrosity.

Repeal the entire thing if the SCOTUS only overturns the mandate portion, and start from scratch.

If I was the GOP, I would repeal every single law passed under the Pelosi-Read reign of terror and pass separate targeted laws to restore anything they might have done that is actually good for the people and freedom and our rights. Not that I believe any of it is.

END IT. Full repeal or overturn. Then make insurance available across state lines and approve health savings accounts.

NO SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. NYET.


9 posted on 06/15/2012 12:54:23 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (REPEAL OBAMACARE. Nothing else matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

I believe that the Rats illegally passed Obamacare, as they used reconciliation process, which is not legal for Obamacare.

Why haven’t the Republicans already stood their ground on this issue that the law is illegal because it was passed unlawfully.

And why the hell isn’t that part of the argument to the SCOTUS? If Obamacare was unlawfully passed with 51 votes using reconciliation, then why the hell isn’t it part of the SCOTUS argument to overturn a law that is unlawfully passed?


10 posted on 06/15/2012 12:57:43 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (REPEAL OBAMACARE. Nothing else matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

How could Georgia have sent them across several other states and stteled them in federal territory without the Federal government’s participation? Your version doesn’t make sense.


11 posted on 06/15/2012 2:24:40 PM PDT by Hugin ("Most times a man'll tell you his bad intentions, if you listen and let yourself hear."---Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Tupelo

Nobody would comply with the Liberal Messiah. He would be guaranteeing His defeat in November.


13 posted on 06/15/2012 2:32:54 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: onetruelord
be careful what you wish for friends. if the madate is overturned but the rest remains intact it will bankrupt insurance companies. the will immediately have their cockroach lobbyists clammering for a public option.

I don't think so. They know that if it comes to a public option, Obama will not hesitate to take them out of the picture altogether.

More likely, these same insurance companies that backed Obamacare from the start,will suddenly start throwing money at Republicans.

14 posted on 06/15/2012 2:47:38 PM PDT by CharacterCounts (A vote for the lesser of two evils only insures the triumph of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free
It would be a gross violation of separation of powers for Scotus to get involved in a contest over the Parliamentary Rules of either house.
16 posted on 06/15/2012 3:03:18 PM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

HMMM, the news station I am watching says Monday 18th for SCOTUS ruling. This post says week of 25th! Which is it?


17 posted on 06/15/2012 3:59:33 PM PDT by TexasRedeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
It would be a gross violation of separation of powers for Scotus to get involved in a contest over the Parliamentary Rules of either house.

While that is true, I'm curious what you would suggest as the remedy if, just before outgoing congresscritters were replaced by new ones, a bunch of them typed up a bill and gave it to the President, claiming that it had been approved by voice vote, and the President signed it? Who would have standing to challenge that, and by what means would such a challenge be conducted?

If the newly-seated Congress would have the authority to decide such a challenge by itself, with the legislation being struck down by a 50% vote in either house, then that would imply that Congress has far greater authority to repeal legislation than specified in the Constitution (which requires a majority of both houses, and presidential approval, or else a 2/3 majority in both houses). If invalidating the legislation would require a majority of both houses and presidential support, or a 2/3 majority in both houses without it, then some rogue congresscritters amounting to 1/3 of either house could conspire with the President to "pass" whatever legislation they wanted.

I really don't see any practical alternative to allowing some outside arbiter to act in such cases. True, that may seem to violate "separation of powers", but I would suggest that the Court has a duty to uphold the Constitution even when Congress does not.

18 posted on 06/15/2012 4:11:44 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
"they will immediately have their cockroach lobbyists clammering for a public option."

The public option is the end game for the politicians, insurance companies, and medical industry. Privatize the profits while transfering the risks and costs to the taxpayers and consumers. Follow the money, always follow the money.

19 posted on 06/15/2012 6:27:26 PM PDT by buckalfa (Nabob of Negativity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: supercat
The scenario you described violated Article I Section 7 because it did not pass both houses of Congress. That situation appears justicable where a violation of reconciliation rules does not. IIRC, the GOP threatened to file suit if Obamacare was “deemed as passed,” by the House, but I could be wrong.

I don't think I follow the events in your second paragraph. There was no constitutionally passed law to repeal, was there?

Your last para speaks to the frustration we conservatives constantly deal with. We wish to see a prosperous and happy republic and know we will have one if our Constitution is followed; the rats wish to tear it down and impose a utopia, which is certain to become a hell.

If the people want Utopia (hell), that is what we'll get.

20 posted on 06/16/2012 3:03:50 AM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo
If the court strikes down obamacare, he will demogogue it for electoral purposes but not much else. Obama is a far cry from Old Hickory.
21 posted on 06/16/2012 7:37:02 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | 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