Skip to comments.New look at health care? [Supreme Court re-review of Obamacare?]
Posted on 10/01/2012 9:53:46 AM PDT by Hunton Peck
The Supreme Court opened its new Term on Monday by asking the federal government to offer its views on whether the way should be cleared for new constitutional challenges to the federal health care law including a new protest against the individual mandate that the Court had upheld last June. The request for the governments views came in response to a rehearing request by a religious-oriented institution, Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. The universitys earlier petition was simply denied in June, so it asked the Court to reconsider and wipe out a lower court ruling in order to revive the universitys religious challenges to both the individual mandate and the separate insurance coverage mandate for employers. There is also another challenge to the employer mandate, which did not figure in the Courts decision last Term.
The order came amid a long list of orders on cases that arrived at the Court over the summer. There were no new grants. Among other actions, the Court invited the government to offer its reaction to several new cases.
The U.S. Solicitor General was invited to advise the Court on whether it should hear Arzoumanian, et al., v. Munchener (docket 12-9) on the insurance claims of victims of the Armenian genocide; three related cases on class-action lawsuits involving securities fraud (dockets 12-79, 12-86 and 12-88), and on Young v. Fitzpatrick (docket 11-1485), a case testing legal immunity for police officers working for an Indian tribe.
The Court summarily affirmed lower court rulings rejecting claims of packing of minority voters into new districts to diminish their political strength a question of racial gerrymandering (Backus v. South Carolina, 11-1404) as well as claims of partisan gerrymandering in redistricting (Radogno v. Illinois Board of Elections, 11-1127). The Court provided no explanation for its action.
(NOTE TO READERS: This post will be updated and expanded following this mornings oral arguments. Posts also will appear later today on those arguments.)
All the FedGov has to do is lie again about what the law is. We know Roberts will buy it.
They won’t embarass themselves. Then they would have to admit that they made a big stupid mistake and showed that they have no concept of what law means and what the Constitution means.
Well since Roberts said it was legal as a TAX, then it was illegally made into law since all TAX bills must originate in the house.
Asking the enemy of Amerika the federal government.
“Well since Roberts said it was legal as a TAX, then it was illegally made into law since all TAX bills must originate in the house.”
EXACTLY. And when someone with standing can challenge that tax, it should be heard again. All the “Roberts is a liberal” crowd doesn’t get this. He killed their power grab on commerce and boxed them in.
The bill did, technically, originate in the house. The senate just amended it by removing the everything, and adding in the Patient Affordability Act.
Then, the house accepted the bill as amended.
Pretty sure this isn't the first time.
I was just about to say this... CJ Roberts as much as left a trail of crumbs to the door that should bring down the unconstitutional “health”care bill.
All legistration that involves spending MUST originate in the House. Since CJ Roberts was clear that the individual mandate was, in fact, a tax...the bill involves spending.
Therefore, it MUST have originated in the House to be legal. Unfortunately, it is a creation of Harry Reid and originated in the Senate.
Thus it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and Roberts as much as told us so.
All someone has to do now is re-challange it on these grounds..... please? anyone???
Harry Reid’s the one who took a Bill from the House then gutted it and replaced it with the 0bamacare text and changed the title.. Something like that.
I don’t think Roberts is “liberal”, but I also don’t buy into the idea that Roberts was purposely killing their power grab. This ruling that it was a tax is not a “poison pill” in the ruling. Why? Because he was the deciding vote. If he wanted to kill their power grab on the commerce clause, a better, much more expedient way to do it is just to vote with the other conservative justices and call it what is was...an abuse and extensive overreach of the commerce clause. Calling it a tax just so that it could later be shot down on a technicality makes no sense. It’s purely wishful thinking.
How about that the House bill number originated in the House but the entire content of the House bill was replaced by Harry Reid in the Senate with Obamacare so that the entire spending bill except the House designation originated in the Senate instead of the House a required by the Constitution?
EXACTLY. And when someone with standing can challenge that tax, it should be heard again. All the Roberts is a liberal crowd doesnt get this. He killed their power grab on commerce and boxed them in.
Thanks for some interesting posts, Mr. K and jessduntno.
Pinging a few FRiends here...
When someone is actually taxed, that may be when there is standing.
“When someone is actually taxed, that may be when there is standing.”
It will also raise the issue of forcing tax exempt organizations to mandate a tax. What will they do then? There will be no mechanism with which to charge, collect or pay a tax.
I go for more basic reasons for Roberts decision. I have to ask the questions that others have as:
-What did the Democrats have on Roberts?
-How did they get to him?
-what were they going to expose?
Interesting. Sounds as if Kennedy or Scalia is so torked-off they are gonna force the issue.