Skip to comments.Affordable Care Act SCOTUS Decision--Live Thread
Posted on 06/28/2012 4:56:21 AM PDT by John W
Today is the day. SCOTUSblog live at 8:45 AM.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.wpengine.com ...
Here on this thread!
——Man I hope this dies - I dont think I can stand hearing the term ObamaCare the rest of my life.——
If this got flushed over a month ago, Odumbo already has his contingency plan in place. Whatever it is, he will begin acting immediately.
The Constitution is an old yellowed document, if the ideas that it incorporates are no longer held or valued by the people.
10 AM. Scotusblog is going live a little earlier than usual and they will set everything up very nicely and take some questions.
Scalia was in his chamber this morning doing pullups like Robert Deniro in Cape Fear. Don’t let the tinfoilers,the Nattery Naybobs, and the nutters who think Roberts is being blackmailed, or is paid by Soros, get to you.
I don’t know about Boehner but I’m sure going to spike the football. If it should break for obama, you know he’s going to.... and then some!
Regarding the SCOTUS vote that will probably be announced today (deciding on two issues - the Obamacare mandate and Obamacare itself):
4 in favor: the four Socialist amigos will have decided as a block (kind of like a SCOTUS stronghold).
3 against: Scalia, Thomas, and Alito (our freedom-loving, Constitution-loving Justices).
Unfortunately, that means only one of the remaining two is needed to decide in favor of Obamacare.
2 uncertain: Kennedy (as usual) and Roberts (suprisingly).
The Kennedy vote depends which side of the bed he rose up the day of the decision. If for some reason Kennedy has voted against both issues, then we still may have a Roberts problem, because he is apparently loathe to overturn the legislature.
However, if SCOTUS blows it, the game isnt over. The states can and must do as Idaho did: nullify Obamacare and exempt its citizens from its mandates.
What would justify nullifying Obamacare? Its about what we call "law." The highest Law of the Land of course is the U.S. Constitution which trumps any other law that violates it. I'm sure you know this, but it's probably worth saying that in this sense, this "solid four" (or "socialist four") is for overturning the Law of the Land in favor of said "laws" like Obamacare that helps create a Socialist state. Because Obamacare is illegal (outside U.S. Constitutional bounds) and unjust (wrongly interfering with individual liberty) it is, therefore, as Augustine and Blackstone say below, NO LAW.
More on this below if interested from the Philosophy of Law:
[T]he Overlap Thesis underlies the classical naturalism of Aquinas and Blackstone. As Blackstone describes the thesis, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original" (1979, p. 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of classical naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law. On this view, to paraphrase Augustine, an unjust law is no law at all. http://www.threes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1409:philosophy-of-law&catid=75:philosophy&Itemid=60.
no, it will be the last opinion starting at 10am. Probably not until 1015 or 1030 EDT.
Kagan yes because she does not like this country. The wise latino don’t know.
If you believe that, then the individual mandate will be upheld. From Diana West:
"I find it difficult to regard the Supreme Court decision on Arizona immigration law as just another controversial or disappointing highest court decision. There is something almost post-apocolyptic and certainly pre-totalitarian when, to invoke Justice Scalia's dissent, the Court has ruled that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing it. Yes, as Scalia put it, it "boggles the mind."
"It also conjures up truly alarming comparisons with "justice" as meted out by kangaroo courts, show trials and other horrors of totalitarian dictatorships. We understand such criminal acts of going through the motions as sham procedures that have no intention of upholding the rule of law, but rather go forward to entrench an ideology or regime or, usually, both. It is shocking, therefore, to see even a pale reflection of such things in this ruling, the perfect endpiece to President Obama's recent Rose Garden Amnesty. Maybe it's the context of lawlessness and abdication of responsibility we live amid.... In these lawless and irresponsible times, Arizona's immigration law sets a dangerous precedent, demonstrating how both to re-establish the rule of law and take responsibility."
"Is that why, circa 2012, it had to be struck down?
"In April 2010 I wrote Arizona and its immigration law, and, looking back, I realize now I should have known the law was doomed. Why?"
"Arizona suddenly poses an unexpected threat to the status quo of permissible lawlessness, the illegal demographic transformation of this country into a linguistic and cultural extension of Latin America. This out-of-control movement has been tolerated if not facilitated by our political leadership for several decades under the dangerous influence of what we know as multiculturalism, the school of thought that has widely delegitimized U.S. identity altogether. Maybe more than anything else, Arizona's law restores a civic sense that there exists such an identity, and it is, and should be, legally protected. Thus, the multiculti rage."
"Don't let the robes, the perfect spelling, the orderliness fool you: The Supremes' ruling only makes this rage officially the law of the land."
The AZ ruling has destroyed the concept of federalism and made the states administrative units of the central government. Today's decision will add to that precedent.
Pins and needles bookmark
If I were writing an editorial tomorrow and this law stands, it would begin like this: Yesterday, June 28, 2012, will live in infamy, the republic was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the democrat party under the auspices of the Empire of Obama.
Yup I’m with you on this
I’m waiting to see if I continue in my field past 2014 or if I’m looking for another way to support myself....
Three decisions today
1. Stolen Valor
I agree with that, particularly with regard to the ruling on the separability clause. I'm betting the Court will rule that there is an implied separability clause in the law. This despite the obvious will of Congress to strike the clause from earlier draft versions of Obamacare.
The separability clause ruling should be a slam dunk. I'm betting it won't be and we won't be happy about the decision.
I think in KISS, keep it silly simple.
Obama failed to qualify as POTUS, everything he thought he had power to do is constitutionally illegal.
Obama care was an illegal act upon America by a fraudster.
Scotus should NOT enforce an illegal act or even support any part of it.
If they do it will further create an image of NO CONFIDENCE of the American society.
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.