Posted on 03/27/2012 1:13:49 PM PDT by Kaslin
That is the bottom line. Forget all of the posturing, the speculation, the questioning (even by the Justices). If this law passes muster, then our republic is finished - we will live in a dictatorship at the whim of those in Congress and the White House.
Keep in mind that they don't have to do something like this too many times, and they will have succeeded in tying up most or all of a person's discretionary income. Health insurance and health care is a big budget item, and if this law stands it'll now be controlled by the government. Add in "environmental concerns" and you'll have government CHOOSING YOUR CAR FOR YOU - oh, sure, it'll be challenged, but it'll lose based on this case. Ditto for housing and college - the do-gooder fascists will come up with some excuse related to "the common good" for any mandate, and then will use this case as precedent.
This case IS the line in the sand. Either the law is struck down and we still retain some of our liberties with a chance to restore more in the future, or it is not and we retain none and say goodbye to the America that we have loved for generations. It is that simple.
BTW, for those who won't support a Republican candidate who is not of your choosing, think about Obama appointing another 1, 2 or 3 justices (and, especially, replacing Thomas, Alito or Scalia). Think about the hundreds of District and Appeals Court judges he will appoint in the next 4 years. If Obama gets to do that, regardless of how this case turns out, our republic is dead. This election is THAT important - and sometimes the lesser of 2 evils is the best choice, because if it isn't chosen then the greater evil wins. Obama is an extremely radical opponent of limited government and of American exceptionalism. He will accelerate the tearing down of this country in a 2nd term - so that term must not come about. I am NOT a Romney supporter by any stretch of the imagination, and I am PLENTY pissed off at what the Republican establishment has done over the past few decades, but I'll vote for the Republican candidate in November regardless - because the alternative is our nation's destruction.
I'll bet they've already chartered the buses.
It was unmistakably contained in Alito's line of questioning on burial insurance. Alito's metaphor is easily understood as signaling his disgust at the idea of penultimately giving the Commerce Clause vis divina over every other word in the Constitution, particularly those rather important Articles regarding separation of powers. It's a short step to render drawing (or re-drawing) that bright line.
Even the choice of wording was pointed. In fact, Alito's questioning was so composed, the majority opinion is already written in his head, and probably Nino's too. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Roberts hands the majority opinion to Alito so Roberts and Kennedy can disagree in part if necessary.
In the long run, this will just start them seething and plotting an insidious caper to seize control of the Court (just like their Secretaries of State Project after the 2000 election)
In reading the transcript, there are many references to the government forcing people to buy broccoli.
Recall President Bush declaring “I am President of the United States and I don’t have to eat my broccoli!” Funny how the Supreme Court is now asking, in earnest, why the government should not be able to force someone to buy, and presumably eat, broccoli.
They are aiming at the good conscience of Kennedy. We shall see if he has the fortitude to stand up to it.
It’s disturbing that a SCOTUS Justice is so powerful and it is uncomfortable to think how he must view his power. I wonder if enjoys the power, if he enjoys being the deciding justice on this.
If Justice Kennedy votes against, he will be remembered for not much. If he votes for, all of history will remember him. If he votes against, he will have denied a certain segment of people the ‘right’ to healthcare. If he votes against, he could be blamed for people dying.
And as all the justices are so insulated, there’s not much of a chance that they will be disturbed by public opinion although some pundits have said the opposite.
The commentary has him grilling the Obama lawyer intensely and then holding a carrot out at the end. Could it be that all the while he was grilling this lawyer, that he was searching for the characterization argument dealing with ‘uniqueness’? And then at the end, the ‘professor’ gave the ‘student’ a glimpse of the correct answer.
My own view is that it won’t matter much on how Kennedy votes on the individual mandate. Please read and comment on the post of this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2863884/posts?page=26#26
Old old story. The judge says the words one way, but then decides the other way.
if this is upheld, GOP needs to be ready to go the next day with a bill requiring every American to buy a firearm and a subscription to Rush 24/7.
**** Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs [i.e., the government] were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance, but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment.” ****
The court ruled that such an arrest for a misdemeanor that is punishable only by a fine does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
I pray that I am wrong... but I swear that I can see the end of our Republic in our time... and that pains me worse than death. Maybe I shouldn't care as much as I do or love my Republic as much as I do or base my life on our Freedoms and Liberty as much as I do... but I am a GOD fearing Patriot and I know no other way.
LLS
It's possible that Obama shot himself in the foot if Sotomayer is too radical. Radical leftists don't handle disagreeing opinions well.
She might just as easily wind up pissing off Kennedy enough that he votes against anything she promotes.
THIS IS NOT TOO FAR FETCHED. IF THE GOV'T ARGUMENT IS, "We can make young people buy health insurance so that they are not an economic strain when they get older and in poor health", it is not far fetched to imagine the Gov't forcing people to buy broccoli and other "health foods" so that they will not be an economic drain when they are older and in poor health.
And if the lib argues "That's ridiculous!", tell him about Kennesaw, Georgia, where they did indeed mandate firearms ownership.
Kelso and Lawrence v. Texas both make me shiver. I enjoyed reading this, but I am not totally optimistic. It could very easily go against us.
However, the one thing, the major thing that I keep coming back to, is that Obama has seriously offended the Justices of the Supreme Court on more than one occasion — and judges have long memories.
And remember, the Supremes — like congress — is a co-equal branch of the government. Even the Liberal justices are probably a bit irritated about the disregard Obama has showne for the rule of law.
I just hope I am not clinging to straws.
Beware commies squealing in harmony.
That would certainly explain all the fake noise coming out of the Archdiocese of NY about it: It's all been theater.
I like the way you see the macro view, zooming out to show us the real consequences. As you say, next they will insist on universal housing, college, vehicles and nutrition dictated by Big Brother.
This got me thinking... if the fedguv is overseeing all health care expenditures, won’t it have to use actuaries just like private insurers do? They would need to approve/refuse treatments and coverage just as Big Insurance does now.
Consider this: do I have to pay identical premiums of an alcoholic, an openly gay young man, or an extreme motocross high jumper, or a street gangster, or a chain smoker, a 500 pound man, a martial arts cage fighter? All of these are demonstrably more dangerous and promise large medical bills.
I’m a boring white collar man who stays in shape and drinks a few beers now and then. Do I pay exactly the same as they do? When the government is the only insurer left in the game (that IS their stated goal) will they offer custom-packaged coverage tiers?
Will the lone insurer (gov) penalize or fee individuals based on their behavior? If not, why not? Boring folks like me will be getting ripped off big time. This pandoras box will bring forth a monster, with even uglier monsters in its’ wake.
How much protection do the justices have?
I would suggest that Kennedy and maybe the rest of them should have a little Secret Service protection for the next couple months.
The suspect is awful.I sure hope that they can see the subversion of our constitution that this bill contains and reject the whole thing.
yeah, I remember that, it was Bush41. Personally I love Broccoli any which way
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.