Posted on 03/28/2012 8:36:39 AM PDT by katieanna
The Supreme Court on Wednesday is entering the last of its three days of arguments over the Obama health-care law, with justices set to weigh what happens to the rest of the overhaul if the court strikes down the requirement that individuals carry health insurance. We have reporters at the court, who are sending in updates on the action. The morning session started at 10 a.m. ET, and the afternoon session starts at 1 p.m.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
I sure hope your dad is right! This whole thing is so bad I can barely believe this is the USA. The way is was written - or should I say by whom, the way it was passed with all the dirty deals, and the doubling of cost already.
It could barely be worse!
If they rule against the mandate (which IMO they will) then they can only rule how the mandates effect the entire bill or the consequences of the ruling. Merely stating they are aware of the consequences may be all that can be stated. Simply that with mandates unconstitutional the bill is an empty shell and needs reworking from scratch would suffice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Then why does your father think 6-3 against the entire bill? Would they then not say, in effect, "The act of determining which part to keep is not a judicial responsibility, it is legislative"... and we therefore strike down the mandate as unconstitutional and send the "crippled" bill back to you for you to deal with what remains. Isn't "empty shell" a legislative opinion, rather than a constitutional one? What would be their constitutional grounds for killing the whole bill? Breyer suggesting that his options include appointing a special master or going back to the district courts???
OTOH, the Court WILL NOT allow Congress to claim a power NOT specified in the Constitution.
Requiring a person to enter into a compulsory contract has been invalid for centuries - and the Founding Fathers knew this.
Forcing someone to enter the marketplace so that Congress can regulate them under the Interstate Commerce Clause is a non sequitor. Fining someone for failure to do so is ALSO invalid.
IF the Court declares the mandate [and the rest of the law] unconstitutional, it is NOT activism - it is the duty of the Court. For as Justice John Marshall stated in Marbury v. Madison [an opinion that DEMs CLAIM they revere]:
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is ..."
Sotomayor MUST have skipped the day in CONSTITUTION 101 in law school when they discussed Marbury v. Madison. And she MIGHT NOT know that the great Justice John Marshall stated:
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is ..."
For that matter - based on her statement, she might not know WHO Justice John Marshall is ...
That’s why the opinions they write will be more important than the vote they take.
Their rational for voting it down completely or just passing an empty shell back to congress is more important than what how they vote.
One thing for sure, they do not want to make a habit out of this practice. This time 2,700 pages next time 5,000 filled with materials that no one knows. It’s an Alinsky mind game of using the system to destroy the system and I do wish someone could point that out to them so they can stop the mind games in their tracks.
Without the mandates. US Insurance companies cannot finance the rest of Obama care without MASSIVE premium increases.
That will result in MILLIONS losing healthcare insurance, even more than are losing it now due to Obamacare.
Ready-made Democrat ‘Crisis”
Statements made today mean little since the ruling will be sometime in June. That gives Obama and his cronies a long time to make phone calls and sway his insiders.
I disagree. First, the ruling does not have to come in June. It is merely presumed it will as that is the end of the term. They can rule next month if they are ready. 2) If by cronies you mean Soto and Kagan, look, they are having a hard time defending the Statute because it is BAD law. Bad law, and in this case, Sloppy law, is terribly hard to defend. The president will be gone in less than a year (at most 5 years) whereas these Justices’ rulings and reputations are part of history.
Their rational for voting it down completely or just passing an empty shell back to congress is more important than what how they vote.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Surprised by your answer, HM. Need educated on this. Is not the vote the whole ball of wax? If the empty shell is passed back to Congress, is it not then out of SCOTUS hands, no matter what majority and minority decisions are?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s an Alinsky mind game of using the system to destroy the system and I do wish someone could point that out to them so they can stop the mind games in their tracks.
The same was my greatest source of frustration in listening to these oral arguments. Justices asking what are the "limits" if Fed can impose ObamaCare? Then what next? Where are the limits?
What next? ALL they need is ObamaCare to take down America.
Other dogs not barking:
1) There are not 40 mil citizens w/o Healthcare. Not true. That was mentioned again and again. Then said, well, the percentages don't matter, but that number DID matter to them, and it is false.
2) Another "fact" that was repeated over and over again was related to the subject of cost-shifting. Someone not having insurance is costing me more. And the amount that was bandied about, over and over again, was $1000. It is costing me $1000 per year to subsidize those w/o health insurance.
NOT TRUE: The real cost is more like $80-$200:
Referenced article:
ObamaCare and the Truth About 'Cost Shifting' {March 11, 2011]
3) "Soft" euthanasia -- The number of people under ObamaCare who will be exempted from both "contribution" and penalty costs can no more support Obamacare by the contributions of the low-actuarial-risk young citizens than can requiring the 1 %ers to hand over all of their cash improve the economy.
ObamaCare doesn't even require an increasing number of denied medical procedures and life-saving meds, though that is guaranteed to happen. It only requires an army of SEIU home healthcare workers knocking at the doors of the elderly, the disabled, and the mentally infirm, telling them that their selfish desire to live longer is denying quality care to others---to their children and grandchildren---a monologue that I imagine will be scripted much like debt-collectors' monologue, and with similar increasing psychological pressure.
We have the means to improve the healthcare system that exists---if only that had been the original objective.
I’m amazed at how stupid the liberals are for not having a severability clause. Doh!
The reason that I think the opinions will be more important than the vote is whether the high court calls them on their game playing. 2,700 pages of legal manipulations, attempts to rewrite commerce laws, challenging the constitution, not to mention all the non-case issues that the SCOTUS are aware of just by living in DC.
The congress and legal eagles for BO administration appeared inept. Will the opinion point that out? (Did you read about the commercial using their attorney....think it higher up on thread)
Putting all the legal decision and issues aside, just dealing with the crap this bill represents, with the writing skills on this court, should make for some interesting reading.
AS Thomas once said it's time for them to evade the bull-crap they call Obamacare. There is a second meaning of the word, although dissect might be more appropriate. Regardless hope Nancy, and BO are left with nothing but piles (PI)
Quoting: Justice Scalia says it’s “totally unrealistic” to expect the Supreme Court to go through 2,700 pages of the health-care law and figure out which provisions should remain in place and which must be thrown out because they’re interconnected with the insurance mandate.”
I think this is a fascinating argument. 2700 page IS a lot, and these guys should stand firm on the position that it’s too much to reasonably comprehend, even for experienced constitutional lawyers. (well most of them are)
So as katieanna neatly put it, if we had to ‘pass it to find out what’s in it’ — we should strike it down by the same standard. If nothing else on the presumption that there are bound to be unconstitutional sections *somewhere* in that morass of paperwork.
It’s a Frankenstein-ian monstronsity that needs to be killed. Not “lop off an arm” here and “trim this bit of leg” there. Die. It will be worse if half-alive. That will simply open the floodgates for more layers of legislation to ‘repair’ what was cut out.
Bury it, and pour salt on the ground so nothing ever grows there again.
Nice.
Interesting. What things did she do?
“Lack of severability clause was done of purpose. “
—— as was the push by Obama et al to get it heard by SCOTUS so soon. They could have easily have stalled it til close to or after the election, I would think. Mark Levin said they pushed for sooner rather than later.
“The reason that I think the opinions will be more important than the vote is whether the high court calls them on their game playing. 2,700 pages of legal manipulations....should make for some interesting reading.”
ah! Well, that would be a quickening moment for the nation.
“Did you read about the commercial using their attorney....”
Verrilli??? Checked, but do not see it.
“The congress and legal eagles for BO administration appeared inept.”
White House has no contingency plans if health law is tossed (the rookie Hussein is clueless)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2865183/posts
Why push to get the case heard sooner than later? Hard to believe our national nightmare (at least one of them) could be over soon.
Read my post on that thread. The no consigency plan is another attempt to create maximum chaos.
Pray to God that the GOP has a plan and that the court gives them time to get it in place.
Verilli was the name mentioned in the ad. To be truthful got interupted and didn’t follow through. Could it have been on one of Rush’s threads. Will keep my eye out for it.
then certainly the federal government has a right to choose Obamacare for its unwanted sick old white people sucking up social security [/sarcasm]
Lack of severability was intentional. Were it severable, the law would be more susceptible to Judicial temperance. The Democrats were betting on a "too big to fail" strategy which may turn out to be a miscalculation.
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.