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

Skip to comments.

4 Republican justices control fate of health law
Associated Press ^ | 3/18/12 | MARK SHERMAN

Posted on 03/18/2012 9:47:19 AM PDT by SmithL

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Here's a thought that can't comfort President Barack Obama: The fate of his health care overhaul rests with four Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices.

His most sweeping domestic achievement could be struck down if they stand together with Justice Clarence Thomas, another GOP appointee who is the likeliest vote against.

But the good news for Obama is that he probably needs only one of the four to side with him to win approval of the law's crucial centerpiece, the requirement that almost everyone in this country has insurance or pays a penalty.

Lawyers with opposing views of the issue uniformly agree that the four Democratic-appointed justices, including Obama's two picks, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, will have no trouble concluding that Congress did not overstep its authority in adopting the insurance requirement that is aimed at sharply reducing the now 50 million people without insurance.

On the other side, Thomas has made clear in several cases that he does not take an expansive view of Congress' powers.

Both the Obama administration and the health care law's challengers believe they can attract the other four Republicans to their side. The group includes Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the two appointees of President George W. Bush who have swung the court to the right in a number of areas; conservative stalwart Antonin Scalia; and the less doctrinaire Anthony Kennedy.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 0bama; abortion; deathpanels; mandate; obamacare; scotus; scotusobamacare; zerocare

1 posted on 03/18/2012 9:47:23 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

This law is so clearly unconstitutional that no honest person can argue that it is valid. Unfortunately, we’re dealing with the Supreme Court, and far too many Justices have no interest in the document they are required by their oath to uphold.


2 posted on 03/18/2012 9:53:27 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I hope these conservative justices don’t wake up with horse heads in their beds.

Unfortunately, I think it’s probable with this criminal Regime.


3 posted on 03/18/2012 9:53:48 AM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
There is not one conservative on SCOTUS.

They bowed to the undocumented one,
even as a litigant over John Jay's grave.


On July 25th, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention:

"[T]he people are the sovereign of this country, and consequently that
fellow citizens and joint sovereigns cannot be degraded by appearing
with each other in their own courts to have their controversies determined.
The people have reason to prize and rejoice in such valuable privileges,
and they ought not to forget that nothing but the free course
of constitutional law and government can ensure the continuance
and enjoyment of them.
"
[John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia]

The Convention agreed and without debate the provision suggested by Jay was written into the Constitution.

That Jay’s advice was taken is not surprising because in his career Jay was President of the Continental Congress, Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court, 1st Chief Justice of the United States, Ambassador to Spain and France, Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Secretary of State) and Governor of New York, among other things. He wasn’t a man whose advice could be ignored. Note that what particularly concerned Jay was not a political issue but a military issue arising because the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. He was bothered by issues of National Security."




4 posted on 03/18/2012 9:55:04 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Reagan’s “Sacramento Kid” will come through yet for Obama.


5 posted on 03/18/2012 9:56:07 AM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I love how our very freedom is controlled by four unelected, unanswerable federal judges. Or is it one?

Our freedom is nothing more than an illusion.


6 posted on 03/18/2012 9:56:07 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

In the liberal media bias department, note that the ‘rats are merely “Democrat-appointed” but some on the right are either “conservative stalwarts” or they are “less doctrinaire” (but still doctrinaire). There are never any doctrinaire leftists, whether more so or less so, and there are certainly never any liberal stalwarts.


7 posted on 03/18/2012 9:56:59 AM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unkus

I always remember the conservative justices in my prayers.
I suggest all Freepers do the same.


8 posted on 03/18/2012 9:57:58 AM PDT by Bobalu (It is not obama we are fighting, it is the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

So what does this say about Democrat appointments? Even the State-Run AP is admitting that they are sure to vote to infringe on our liberty. Can any of them be considered “independent minded?” The answer is obvious, isn’t it?


9 posted on 03/18/2012 9:59:42 AM PDT by Lysandru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

So what does this say about Democrat appointments? Even the State-Run AP is admitting that they are sure to vote to infringe on our liberty. Can any of them be considered “independent minded?” The answer is obvious, isn’t it?


10 posted on 03/18/2012 9:59:50 AM PDT by Lysandru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Yahoo comes through again. Those mean old Republican Justices want to take away your Health care.

The other five are just like Obama, making sure the Government knows what's best for you, whether you like it or not.

Don't worry about that Constitution thingy, it's just a bunch of mindless drivel written by some demented old White Slave Owners anyway.

11 posted on 03/18/2012 10:00:45 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (A day without Obama is like a day without a Tsunami.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lysandru; coloradan
So what does this say about Democrat appointments? Even the State-Run AP is admitting that they are sure to vote to infringe on our liberty. Can any of them be considered “independent minded?” The answer is obvious, isn’t it?

Excellent point, especially when viewed in justaxposition with coloradan's post. The conservatives get all the extremist adjectives yet the article counts the leftists votes with more confidence than the supposed conservatives. Their own article gives the lie to their characterization of the justices.

12 posted on 03/18/2012 10:03:44 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

Well, it’s true: there are no liberal stalwarts. There are liberal frauds, and there are liberal fools, but those are about the only classes extant: no stalwarts.


13 posted on 03/18/2012 10:06:23 AM PDT by Grampa3711 (Some people bring happiness wherever thet go; others, whenever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Funny how they want to woo the conservatives to their cause.

The real issue is constitutionality and they should fear that an unbiased judge would stray from the dim indoctrination.

They have no fear of this as demonstrated by the following excerpt:

Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, will have no trouble concluding that Congress did not overstep its authority

14 posted on 03/18/2012 10:10:42 AM PDT by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

if Obama had his way, two of the justices, Roberts and Alito, would not be on the Supreme Court.

He voted against confirming both of them to the Supreme Court when he was a Senator.


15 posted on 03/18/2012 10:16:15 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

bttt


16 posted on 03/18/2012 10:17:59 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Mit brennender Sorge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I object to the whole tone of this article.

It talks about how the fate of the law hinges on approval or disapproval of four conservative justices. It makes it sound as if the court is a legislative body, with voting blocs which have to be convinced to vote for a piece of legislation.

The role of the courts is not that of a legislative body. The role of the courts in cases such as this is, or is supposed to be, to rule as to whether the law is constitutional or unconstitutional.

The court is going to rule on whether the federal government exceeded its authority by passing this law. It is not supposed to rule on whether it approves of said law as a public policy position.

If this high profile case helps educate the public, and liberals, as to the role of the courts within our constitutional republic, that would be a good thing.


17 posted on 03/18/2012 10:23:43 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

That’s because they need to throw ‘precedent’ out the window. Just because someone else ruled some way on something doesn’t make it right.


18 posted on 03/18/2012 10:31:05 AM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks SmithL. Cue the Foundations.

[singing] Why do you build me up, buttercup baby...


19 posted on 03/18/2012 10:34:16 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL
4 Republican justices control fate of health law

Anytime Republicans control fate, of anything, we are so screwed...........

20 posted on 03/18/2012 10:36:14 AM PDT by varon (Congress is a sanctuary for political criminals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: varon

“When the votes don’t matter you can count on us.”

Republicans 2012


21 posted on 03/18/2012 10:44:48 AM PDT by trappedincanuckistan (livefreeordietryin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I pray that we can take the Senate and White House this November and get this monstrosity repealed. Never in my life have I seen a more worthless POS than the one occupying the White House.


22 posted on 03/18/2012 10:55:01 AM PDT by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Well, if it is upheld then outlawing abortion can be waged on a new front. Pregnancy when not a threat to a woman’s health would be an elective medical procedure. Since the government is merely regulating interstate commerce regarding health, no health resources should be wasted on elective medical procedures. Women have neither a choice on buying insurance nor having an abortion. We need doctors to save lives, not end them.


23 posted on 03/18/2012 11:12:34 AM PDT by JoeRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The article says “the requirement that almost everyone in this country has insurance “ ALMOST except those who obama the dictator grants waivers.


24 posted on 03/18/2012 11:16:50 AM PDT by Terry Mross ( "It happened. And we let it happen. - Peter Griffin, Family Guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeRed

I meant to write that abortion would be an elective procedure when the pregnancy is not life threatening. Ooops.


25 posted on 03/18/2012 11:17:16 AM PDT by JoeRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: All; SmithL
I like how "neutral" SCOTUS stories start with the viewpoint any Republican-appointed block on the court may issue a ruling of the "wrong" view.

A lockstep Left is seen as the default correct viewpoint.

It's particularly amusing since some of the Left's most sacred cows, like Roe vs. Wade, were brought forth by "Republican" courts.

26 posted on 03/18/2012 12:08:45 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Santorum: 18-point loss, voted for Sotomayor, proposed $550M on top of $900M Amtrak budget...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheana
That’s because they need to throw ‘precedent’ out the window.

How ever would lawyers make a living then?

27 posted on 03/18/2012 12:33:18 PM PDT by itsahoot (Tag lines are a waste of bandwidth, as are my comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Tell the writer of this story, Mark Sherman, yourself.

He’s on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/shermancourt


28 posted on 03/18/2012 12:44:23 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
John Jay was of Huguenot descent and very anti-Catholic. What would he think of a Supreme Court where 6 of the 9 justices are Catholics?

The date of this letter is in the middle of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia--Jay was then in New York.

29 posted on 03/18/2012 1:28:53 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sheana
That’s because they need to throw ‘precedent’ out the window. Just because someone else ruled some way on something doesn’t make it right.

Exactly. Libs are always all aflutter about stare decisis, but the decades-old decisions they insist would be improper to overturn themselves overturned rules and laws that had been in place for centuries. It's all agenda-driven hypocrisy on their part.

30 posted on 03/18/2012 1:36:32 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
It makes it sound as if the court is a legislative body, with voting blocs which have to be convinced to vote for a piece of legislation.

Beats admitting that the SC has already been hijacked by judicial activists. Obama's ringers (one of whom actually helped craft the Obamacare defense, and whose personal mission is to impose federally funded abortion via Obamacare) are clear enemies of the Constitution. The corrupt justice department protects the corrupt Obama administration and the corrupt ringer, Elena Kagan. The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves.

The author of this theory is none other than Justice Elena Kagan. In 1992, she lamented the Supreme Court decision in Rust v. Sullivan, which upheld that the government could exclude from Title X funding the subsidizing of abortions, abortion counseling, and abortion referrals. If her argument is accepted, not only will Rust v. Sullivan be overturned, but the government will actually be required to fund abortions along with other aspects of reproductive health.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/m-why_obama_wants_the_contraception_mandate_to_go_to_the_supreme_court.html

31 posted on 03/18/2012 1:49:21 PM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

Thanks. Not on Twitter myself, but I might check and see if he has a blog.


32 posted on 03/18/2012 6:09:17 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Amazing that the four Democrat appointed justices, apparently uniform in their foregone conclusion before the first argument, aren’t ‘doctrinaire’ as the author views four of the five Republican-appointed justices.


33 posted on 03/18/2012 6:14:41 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut; SmithL; AJFavish; Red Steel; David; socialismisinsidious; ml/nj; ExTexasRedhead; ...
Conspicuous by its absence in this AP analysis of the SCOTUS justices is any mention of Kagan's refusal to recuse herself for having worked on a constitutional defense of ObamaCare as an Obama administration appointee prior to her appointment to the Court!!!

BTW, according to Rasmussen's polling, the Supreme Court as a body has a 28% approval rating.

34 posted on 03/18/2012 7:20:21 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

IIRC, Congress and certain senior executive branch staff are exempted from Obamacare too. They wonder why they are despised.


35 posted on 03/19/2012 2:30:00 AM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | 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