FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 11/03/2011 7:24:27 AM PDT by Libloather
Health law ruling could be political earthquake
By JENNIFER HABERKORN | 11/1/11 11:32 PM EDT
If the Supreme Court next year gets rid of the health reform law’s requirement to buy insurance, Republicans could gain momentum to get rid of the rest of the law — and President Barack Obama would suffer a huge embarrassment at the height of an election year.
But Democrats and supporters of the law also see a silver lining: If the least popular part of the law goes away, they think what’s left could become stronger and more popular with the public.
Those events could be set in motion as early as next week, when the Supreme Court holds a private conference to decide whether to hear any or all of the four lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the health reform law’s so-called individual mandate.
If the court decides to take up the issue — as it’s expected to do — oral arguments would most likely take place in the spring, and a decision could come at the end of the court’s term in June.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Don't forget about the elections next Tuesday, November 8.
The individual mandate is purely unconstitutional, but that doesn’t mean the leftist on the court won’t vote to say it is.. there is absolutely no way this law as written can stand.
Republicans need to repeal this monstrocity post haste if they control congress and the white house.
This is reported in Politico????? I don’t trust anything they say anymore.
Without that part, the rest of the house of cards collapses.
The remaining mandates will cause insurance premiums to go through the roof. And the Misleadia will blame the "evil insurance companies".
The Supreme Court will take it. My guess is it’ll void the individual mandate as unconstitutional but leave the rest of the law intact. But Obamacare is not enforceable without a mandate. And we have the Supreme Court reviewing a law no bothered to read before they voted on it.
Regardless of the decision it will be a political earthquake. But, also, regardless of the decision, I don’t think this effects the election. This is just not a “tuned in” issue for the public. It should be, but it isn’t.
I don't write off websites. Some of the best news stories come from the bottom feeders to do the heavy lifting for everyone else. Plenty of it is dung, but once in awhile they score.
The letter of the law has never stopped a judge from doing whatever they personally want to do.
This “private conference” business scares the bejeezus out of me. Indicates that they are scared to do the right thing.
Wouldn’t severing a clause of a law that is missing a severability clause be considered unconstitutional? (Oops - there I go thinking logically again)
I agree that it SHOULD kill the entire legislation, but from what I understand of lower-court rulings on this is that because Congress INTENDED to add severability, the courts act as if it is there.
I thought the law included a clause that prohibits severing the total into parts to be overturned piecemeal.
Would not the supremes have to overturn that part in order to overturn the mandate?
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
SCOTUS has a weekly private conference to discuss and vote on which cases they will hear. (It takes four votes to for the case to be heard.) The conference has always been private.
Sadly that is all too true. And a few of them should have their heads on PIKES for doing it.
But unlike our Congress, they cannot hide behind some bogus super-committee.
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.