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

Skip to comments.

People Are Saying That Obama's Healthcare Law Got Massacred At The Supreme Court Today
Business Insider ^ | March 27, 2012 | Grace Wyler

Posted on 03/27/2012 9:51:02 AM PDT by C19fan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last
Looks like at least for today Kennedy woke up on the right side, pardon the pun, of the bed. If you believe his comments the law's mandate would represent a fundamental change in the relationship between gov't and the people and therefore needs there is a "heavy burden of justification" for the government.
1 posted on 03/27/2012 9:51:11 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: C19fan

The show’s not over till the fat lady votes..............


2 posted on 03/27/2012 9:52:55 AM PDT by Red Badger (If the Government can make you buy health insurance, they can make you buy a Volt................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Yeah I believe what the propagandaists at CNN say, yep, right, uh huh.


3 posted on 03/27/2012 9:53:13 AM PDT by Freddd (NoPA ngineers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

The show’s not over till the fat lady votes..............

Kagan?


4 posted on 03/27/2012 9:54:48 AM PDT by fungoking (Tis a pleasure to live in the Ozarks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

This is great except I wouldn’t believe one word Jeff Toobin said on a bet.


5 posted on 03/27/2012 9:56:01 AM PDT by John W (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

As a rock-ribbed conservative, I’m used to disappointment.

I’ll believe it when the actual verdict is in. Not before.


6 posted on 03/27/2012 9:57:44 AM PDT by EyeGuy (2012: When the Levee Breaks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fungoking

Folks, do not get your hopes up... I believe justices often ply the screws to help the case find a way to get around the obstacles...


7 posted on 03/27/2012 9:59:12 AM PDT by dps.inspect (the system is rigged...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Here’s a thought. If the mandate is struck down how will that effect the Republican primary race since Romney implemented much the same thing in Massachusetts. How can any conservative vote for Romney but oppose Obama.


8 posted on 03/27/2012 9:59:35 AM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Don’t count your chickens - there are plenty of cases where appellate judges ask pointed questions to one side and then rule in that side’s favor.


9 posted on 03/27/2012 9:59:48 AM PDT by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Michael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
“This is great except I wouldn’t believe one word Jeff Toobin said on a bet.”

Agreed, although knowing his usual direction and level of spin, if he is calling it a “train wreck” I suspect "complete and unmitigated disaster" is closer to the truth.

If so, I couldn't be happier!

10 posted on 03/27/2012 10:00:30 AM PDT by I cannot think of a name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

We all know how CFR turned out. :(


11 posted on 03/27/2012 10:01:14 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
The arguments will not matter a whit to four of the five members of the Supreme Court. They are automatic rubberstamps for ObamaCare.

Kennedy? It depends on which side of the bed he gets up on tomorrow.

I still say striking down parts of it but finding a way to punt on most of it is a likely outcome.

12 posted on 03/27/2012 10:01:20 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Here’s hoping that this Kennedy doesn’t swim away and leave us gasping at the bottom of the pond.


13 posted on 03/27/2012 10:01:30 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

A good general rule of thumb is to not read too much into the questioning arguments of the Supreme court to try to divine what they’re thinking. The only given is that leftist judges will vote the way the left wants them to. So, the only thing we know for sure is that it will be a 5-4 decision. We just don’t know what way it will go.


14 posted on 03/27/2012 10:02:20 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Trying to use logic to convince a liberal is like explaining algebra to your cat.


15 posted on 03/27/2012 10:02:20 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albionin

/sarcasm on/Because it is okay for a state to force people to buy a product/service and not the Federal gov’t/sarcasm off/


16 posted on 03/27/2012 10:03:15 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Not exactly. It is not over till Justice KENNEDY votes. He IS THE vote. 5-4. He is the one they have to win to defeat this mess.


17 posted on 03/27/2012 10:03:41 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (I'm no Dim or RINO. I am a Monarchist. I serve THE coming King of kings!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
The big disaster hits a brick wall!
18 posted on 03/27/2012 10:06:04 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
The show’s not over till the fat lady votes.............

There is no fat lady on the court. There is no lady on the court. But justice Elana Kagan is fat and gender confused.

It would be more accurate to say "it's not over until Justice Kennedy votes."

19 posted on 03/27/2012 10:06:17 AM PDT by DaveyB (Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. -John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: albionin
You pose a good question. For the sake of argument I will try to supply an answer.

What is the population of Massachusetts? What is the population of the United States? Is it possible that what could work in a single state would fall apart if implemented on a nationwide scale because of the sheer number of people involved?

I don't know.

20 posted on 03/27/2012 10:06:27 AM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

That would make a great tagline. Except I’m not tired of mine yet.


21 posted on 03/27/2012 10:07:36 AM PDT by ZirconEncrustedTweezers (The only thing a straight white man gets in this country is the blame for everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ZirconEncrustedTweezers

You do have a good tagline.


22 posted on 03/27/2012 10:14:35 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: albionin

Romney (or any Republican) gives us a chance of getting a decent Supreme Court justice nominee.

We know what type Obama will give us.


23 posted on 03/27/2012 10:14:54 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

They knock work at noon over there? Nice work if you can get it I guess.


24 posted on 03/27/2012 10:15:21 AM PDT by vortigern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior

Just for the record, it’s not working in MA. Healthcare costs have surged through the roof and into the stratosphere since Romneycare was implemented. People who can’t afford the premiums are being fined heavily, and if they can’t pay the fines then penalties are being assessed on top of the fines. The other 49 [that would be 56, by Obama’s count] states are paying through the nose to subsidize Romneycare. All they’re trying to do is keep it afloat until they can shift the burden to Obamacare.

Fwiw.


25 posted on 03/27/2012 10:16:22 AM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

I’ve heard that a lot of folks are worried about Roberts.


26 posted on 03/27/2012 10:17:50 AM PDT by surrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

In regards to Romney his track record of court appointments in Mass is horrible.


27 posted on 03/27/2012 10:20:03 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Takes a communist like Obama to turn a moderate like Kennedy into a conservative.


28 posted on 03/27/2012 10:20:28 AM PDT by nhwingut (Sarah Palin 12... No One Else (Maybe Tim Thomas))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior

Yes, I am talking principle though. It might work in a state as opposed to a whole country. At least in a state you would have the option to move. I’m talking about the moral premise underneath a mandate like that. How can you say you are for individual liberty and limited government and at the same time sign such a bill into law. I only ask because I am having a real hard time with this election. I feel like voting for Romney would be a breach of my principles. I also feel like Obama needs to go at almost any cost. But where to draw the line is the hard question. It feels like some kind of cosmic joke. I thought the message of the 2010 election was pretty clear and yet we are most likely going to end up with a nominee who, in his own state, implemented a plan identical in principle to Obamacare.


29 posted on 03/27/2012 10:20:54 AM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Freddd

...though use of the term “train wreck” does brighten my day a bit


30 posted on 03/27/2012 10:21:30 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

Yeah, that is a very good point indeed.


31 posted on 03/27/2012 10:23:23 AM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: albionin

The way Palin explained it on Greta last night - the Massachusetts law is a states rights 10th Amendment issue. It wasn’t mandated on the entire country like obamacare. She actually articulated it very well when Greta asked her your same question.


32 posted on 03/27/2012 10:24:28 AM PDT by jersey117 (The Stepford Media should be sued for malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham
Here’s hoping that this Kennedy doesn’t swim away and leave us gasping at the bottom of the pond.

Now I gotta clean the ice tea off my screen (LOL) you win post of the day !

33 posted on 03/27/2012 10:27:28 AM PDT by Bill Buckner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Oral Argument is just kabuki theater

It means nothing and just gives cover to the pusillanimity of the judiciary

.

34 posted on 03/27/2012 10:28:44 AM PDT by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Looks like at least for today Kennedy woke up on the right side, pardon the pun, of the bed.

I'm not concerned about the vote count, it will be 5-4, Unconstitutional, BUT, like the Godfather, I am worried about a terrible accident to one of the conservative Justices, like one is accidentally shot, or hangs himself, or drowns in his bath tub.

35 posted on 03/27/2012 10:32:33 AM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorists savages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

I’m afraid the fix has been in since Obama’s privite meeting with the supremes before he was elected. Why else would he need to meet them privately before hand?


36 posted on 03/27/2012 10:33:32 AM PDT by lwoodham (I am Andrew Breitbart. Don't doubt me on this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vortigern

Oral arguments are just one small part of what the Justices do. Mostly, it’s to review cases and discuss them with their law clerks and the other justices, and then review and/or edit draft opinions written (or sometimes write them, depending on their relationship with their law clerks).


37 posted on 03/27/2012 10:35:17 AM PDT by Piranha (If you seek perfection you will end up with Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: albionin

Well, for one thing, a mandate at the state level is constitutional, while a mandate at the federal level is not. Both are bad policy, but only one is unconstitutional.


38 posted on 03/27/2012 10:35:50 AM PDT by Mike10542
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Yep... both fat ladies. Unfortunately, they’re Obama’s pets.


39 posted on 03/27/2012 10:41:51 AM PDT by ScottinVA (A single drop of American blood for muslims is one drop too many!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

I won’t get my hopes up. This Frankenstein’s monster of legislation was supposed to have died back when Scott Brown was elected. I’m sure Souter will be working on Kennedy.


40 posted on 03/27/2012 10:43:22 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
I still say striking down parts of it but finding a way to punt on most of it is a likely outcome.

The mandate component is the lynchpin for the whole shebang. If it goes, very likely the whole program goes. Obama would then have to find new sources of funding it.

41 posted on 03/27/2012 10:44:18 AM PDT by ScottinVA (A single drop of American blood for muslims is one drop too many!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

I read the transcripts from yesterday.

Thing is, there are things going on kind of behind the scenes (or at least cloaked in terminology) that SUGGESTS to me that even if the law passes, it will be one of those things that are actually voluntary.

They specifically mentioned Article III courts yesterday, and that is very, very telling...


42 posted on 03/27/2012 10:47:52 AM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Toobin added that that the Obama administration's lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General David Verrelli, was unprepared for the attacks against the individual mandate.

Typical performance for a Legal Top Dog selected by an unproven (NO academic credentials that evidence his degrees), affirmative action, white-guilt, black biased poser that is a halfrican Muslim.

43 posted on 03/27/2012 10:49:44 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

This case, unlike most SCOTUS cases, is easy for common folks to understand. Can the federal government force you to buy something, and if so what are the limits to this new federal power? The recent contraceptive mandate helped inform even the Oprah/Jon Stewart crowd.

Liberals on this court will have to literally urinate on the Constitution in order to uphold Obamacare.

Common folks may like the idea of healthcare reform, but not tyranny.


44 posted on 03/27/2012 10:53:17 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf

Ya ya.

SCOTUS is not inclined to toss out entire laws, but to instead find any/all contortions needed to preserve the law in question to the greatest extent possible. If they can find _any_ way the “individual mandate” could be construed as legal, they’ll find & implement it.


45 posted on 03/27/2012 10:53:47 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Liberals and Democrats are masters of deception. Kennedy is a left-leaning liberal. While his pre-decision questions are tough there could be at least two reasons he posed this way: 1) he is coaching the defense, and/or 2) he is just feigning ‘due diligence’ in pre-decision interrogation with a subliminal bias toward the government's position.

Regardless, it is somewhat heartening to hear of the Administration's Top Legal Dog getting his ass handed to him by one of his own.

46 posted on 03/27/2012 10:53:56 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

My prediction:

The court will decide the mandate is not enforceable but not unconstitutional. No penalties will be able to be legally collected.

A collective WTF will follow.


47 posted on 03/27/2012 10:54:07 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (With regards to the GOP: I am prodisestablishmentarianistic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lwoodham
No.

That meeting happened the day of his inauguration, before he was sworn in, IIRC.

CA....

48 posted on 03/27/2012 10:54:37 AM PDT by Chances Are (Seems I've found that silly grin again....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Notice that the Heller case only went so far as to allow minimal possession in the home - not declaring "'right to keep and bear' _means_ 'right to keep and bear'" and eviscerating all "regulations" in question. The court is still mostly the same. If they remove the "individual mandate", expect an "individual mandate"-shaped legal hole will remain - not absence of Obamacare outright.
49 posted on 03/27/2012 11:00:39 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

I think the mandate will get struck down as unconstitutional.

Most Americans, I think, have a very uneasy feeling about the mandate.

Striking it down would signal 2 things:
That in a certain sense, the SC still works for the American people
It would be a message to government to go back to Congress and try to figure out another way of doing things.


50 posted on 03/27/2012 11:03:01 AM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

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