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

Skip to comments.

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law
Fox43 ^ | March 28, 2012 | By David G. Savage

Posted on 03/28/2012 9:44:18 AM PDT by Bill Buckner

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

(Excerpt) Read more at fox43.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: obamacare; robertscourt; ruling; scotus; scotusocareday3
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-323 next last
To: Bill Buckner
'Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation."'

Ginberg would prefer a "wrecking operation" on the US Constitution, so we can then follow her lead and look to the constitution of South Africa:

"I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa."

Ginsburg in a recent interview on Egyptian television


201 posted on 03/28/2012 1:15:11 PM PDT by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner

Wow. It’s amazing how close America came to being totally over.


202 posted on 03/28/2012 1:19:02 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (FOCUS ON FACTS: 0bamaCare Hated. Worst Recovery. Failed Stimulus. Worst Deficits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner

The whole mess is gonna get tossed. Reading the transcripts from today, Scalia is making a crack about striking down “the cornhusker kickback”, a reference to that deal where they (the administration) basically bought the vote of who was it? One of the midwest pubbies? I can’t remember exactly.


203 posted on 03/28/2012 1:20:25 PM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

In what universe are they going to pass a single payer program when they struggled so badly and for many months and with all type of briberies and arm twisting to pass this Obamacare law and when they had super majority in Congress with not a single Republican in Congress voting for it. No way on Earth they are going to pass a single payer program if the Supreme Court scrap the mandates in the Obamacare. They would not even attempt to do it in any serious way, they have lost politically so much because of this and they will be politically suicidal if they attempt to do it again.


204 posted on 03/28/2012 1:21:17 PM PDT by jveritas (God bless our brave troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ELS
Should severability be invoked, I'd expect the court would be obligated to examine the ripple effects of doing so - determining whether what remains is or isn't constitutional. Not a trivial task, considering the bill's two thousand seven hundred pages of modification to existing law. Per my prior example, if the judges decide to take out the entire ground floor of a high-rise building, they're obligated to figure out how to prevent what remains from collapsing - and they're not architects. Maybe more like taking out the oil plug on a car: seems simple, but not quite obvious to all how the chain of consequences will destroy the engine.
205 posted on 03/28/2012 1:26:21 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
I would be leary of thinking they would subject the first black president to such a humiliation.

But... But.... I thought "Lady Justice" was blind? Especially to color? Surely the Supremes will be well within their rights of claiming such, anyway.

206 posted on 03/28/2012 1:27:04 PM PDT by ExSoldier (Stand up and be counted... OR LINE UP AND BE NUMBERED...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: In Maryland

Oral arguments can be rather informal and incomplete. No question that the inclusion, then deliberate removal, of a severability clause WILL be addressed in the final verdict.


207 posted on 03/28/2012 1:29:12 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

I totally agree, we have to wait till the final ruling is issued. I am always weary of the public faces they put versus the actual ruling they issue. Let us hope for the best and that this Obamacare law will go down or at least the mandates will go down which would make the whole Obamacare non workable.


208 posted on 03/28/2012 1:30:14 PM PDT by jveritas (God bless our brave troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

Clement made a brilliant argument that if Congress passes a bill as a general guideline and INCLUDES a severability clause, then what they are saying is “We want most if not all of this, but we’re ok if a piece doesn’t work and we get the rest”

But if Congress passes a bill with NO severability clause, then they are basically saying “That’s it, Jack. Take it or leave it! All or nothing!”


209 posted on 03/28/2012 1:33:46 PM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

They will toss the whole thing.....the stench of 2700 pages
of leftist orgasms will permeate the entire chamber : )


210 posted on 03/28/2012 1:36:28 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

ok captain obvious


211 posted on 03/28/2012 1:37:05 PM PDT by Hammerhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Just think of it. Obama's only claim to competence is his law school specialization in Constitutional Law, yet the law he identifies his legacy upon is being struck down for being unconstitutional.

Sort of leaves a professional black eye.


212 posted on 03/28/2012 1:44:15 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

” To Hell with 0bama, let the little Kenyan sonuvabitch be humiliated. “

It is officially “Humiliate A Racist Communist Muslim Day”


213 posted on 03/28/2012 1:45:49 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner

When the court does strike it down libs will say - they struck it down and they didn’t even read it.


214 posted on 03/28/2012 1:47:21 PM PDT by MomwithHope (Buy and read Ameritopia by Mark Levin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner

Every politician that voted yes on this piece of ...legislation should be booted from office. They tried to steal our liberties and our treasure. Everyone of them should go as well as our political leaders that alllowed this to happen in the first place.( McDonalds and Boner)


215 posted on 03/28/2012 1:48:35 PM PDT by samadams2000 (Someone important make......The Call!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MomwithHope

” When the court does strike it down libs will say - they struck it down and they didn’t even read it.”

LMAO!! NOBODY read that SOMMBISH!!


216 posted on 03/28/2012 1:51:17 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: samadams2000

” .( McDonalds and Boner)”

They go the day it is struck down!


217 posted on 03/28/2012 1:52:45 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner

HOPE AND CHANGE!!!

Best hopeful news in a loooooong time


218 posted on 03/28/2012 1:53:57 PM PDT by wallcrawlr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner
Maybe I have faih in the Supreme Court after all after saying a little prayer for you.

Thanks Aretha.

219 posted on 03/28/2012 1:56:59 PM PDT by Karliner ( Jeremiah 29:11, Romans 8:28, Romans 8:38"...this is the end of the beginning."WC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
Quite. Bills are package deals, detailing interactions among various components and compromises. To take out some parts means others won't work. To take out other parts is to eliminate that which garnered a winning vote count. The vote is upon the whole package, which very well may not have passed without one or another component - and it's not up to the court to understand whether it would pass or function without the component in question.

Yes, severability clauses are a normal well-understood legislative practice, presence or absence thereof indicating "keep what we can" vs "all or nothing".

220 posted on 03/28/2012 1:58:17 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: MomwithHope

[When the court does strike it down libs will say - they struck it down and they didn’t even read it.]

What do you mean? Hell, not even one idiot in Congress ever read this monstrosity and they voted for it. (So they could learn what was in it.....)


221 posted on 03/28/2012 1:59:17 PM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

YIKES!!!!!

I’m about 2/3 of the way reading the transcripts, and the gummint is arguing for severability.

You know what might happen?

They might strike the individual mandate, but LEAVE THE TAXES AND PENALTIES IN PLACE!!!

DOUBLE YIKES!!!!!


222 posted on 03/28/2012 2:03:16 PM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

Yes, its true - they changed the locks as they were crafting the bill. Pelosi authorized this ...


223 posted on 03/28/2012 2:05:17 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: djf

The individual mandate is all about the penalty: no penalty = no mandate.

So whadja read that makes you come to a different conclusion? Don’t have time to read the transcript today.


224 posted on 03/28/2012 2:05:17 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner

I wonder if secretly Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are almost relishing smacking down Obama for his SOTU speech outburst directed at them when they couldn’t defend themselves on camera or in the press.

On top of striking down this unconstitutional mess they get to completely nullify Obama’s “major” legislation “victory” as the hot mess it is and likely write a majority opinion that is a major bitch slap to the pretender and chief.

Suffice to say the Dems sacrificed a house majority, had a scrub of an executive elected, drove the country into the ditch because of complete economic uncertainty and had their century long agenda tossed out on it’s f’ing ear.

Is June going to be fun to watch or what.


225 posted on 03/28/2012 2:06:07 PM PDT by PittsburghAfterDark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
I’m about 2/3 of the way reading the transcripts, and the gummint is arguing for severability.

It had its chance for severability but turned it down because it said the individual mandate was the linchpin of the entire law and that none of it would work apart from the whole. It's too late to claim they want something they already rejected in order to save their sorry asses. That's as stupid as Sotomayor asking why Congress couldn't work all this out. The Democrat Congress did, and that's why it's at the Supreme Court.
226 posted on 03/28/2012 2:07:55 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: djf
Dhimmicrat Senator Ben Nelson, who coincidentally isn't running for re-election this year.
227 posted on 03/28/2012 2:08:29 PM PDT by Cato in PA (1/26/12: Bloody Thursday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
"Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," ... because it's the Court's function to rewrite the legislature's laws ...."

Agreed. "A salvage job"?!? This partisan liberal worm is sitting on the highest court and is nothing more than a rubber stamp and leftist mouthpiece.

228 posted on 03/28/2012 2:08:29 PM PDT by vlad335
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
I agree that that would be the perception, but this Law was cobbled together by Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid with very little input from Obama.

Yeah, but the Great Constitutional Perfessor COULD have read the bill BEFORE he signed it [which I doubt he did]. IF he had read the bill, being the Great Constitutional Perfessor he is, he SHOULDA realized that the mandate was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

At that point, he SHOULDA called Pelosi and Reid into his office - slapped them around a bit with a mackeral, and sent them packing back to Capitol Hill to re-write the bill ...

229 posted on 03/28/2012 2:12:18 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

How dare the Republican leaders in the House & Senate claim
legitimacy?


230 posted on 03/28/2012 2:12:18 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie
Wow. It’s amazing how close America came to being totally over.

A complete repeal is meaningless without the outright firing of ALL the people who were hired to implement this monstrosity.

We have a right to know that these parasites implementing this mess are removed from sponging off the taxpayers. Unless that happens, this win will be ignored.

They will still implement onerous controls that will destroy private health insurance and no one will stop them.

231 posted on 03/28/2012 2:15:39 PM PDT by sand88 (Nothing on this Earth would get me to vote for Mitt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: PittsburghAfterDark

” I wonder if secretly Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are almost relishing smacking down Obama for his SOTU speech outburst directed at them when they couldn’t defend themselves on camera or in the press.”

I am NOT wondering : )


232 posted on 03/28/2012 2:15:56 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector
But, but. What about the “children” that are now on their parent’s insurance? What will become of them, the poor dears?

I don't know about the "children" but I guess I will be on my way to "die quickly"! ; )

233 posted on 03/28/2012 2:25:52 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner
Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

Let's hope Clarence Thomas doesn't "grow."
234 posted on 03/28/2012 2:27:53 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner
Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

Gee, they didn't argue for restraint on killing babies in the womb based on emanations from penumbras.
235 posted on 03/28/2012 2:29:17 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
Poor, poor Justice Ginzburg ~ they strike the whole thing down or just take down a few pieces and do a make-shift rewrite.

That would reduce ObamaKKKARE to a rickety piece of legislation subject to an eternal trail of lawsuits over each and every phrase ~ and subject to a vote by a single justice ~ yea or nay ~ to provide a majority of five.

The Supreme Court would then become "the Death Panel' as each elderly appointee would, in turn, kick the bucket having nothing left in life to do but debate ObamaKKKare.

Sounds like a plan. Get a little guaranteed rotation on the Court and you just never know what they might do.

236 posted on 03/28/2012 2:30:38 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Actually, IMHO, Sotomayer is asking some pretty relevant questions, going back to Constitutional basis and case law.

Kagen, OTOH, is getting chewed up and spit out every time she opens her mouth.

Oh well.

After Ginsburg retires, at least we will still have one box-o-rocks on the bench...


237 posted on 03/28/2012 2:33:18 PM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

If they strike the mandate part but leave the rest, Congress is free to amend the remaining parts (including the taxes and penalties) any which way it wants.


238 posted on 03/28/2012 2:36:26 PM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie
Ms Ginsberg? Hello, MISSUS GINSBERG???

Here. You have three hours.


239 posted on 03/28/2012 2:39:40 PM PDT by freedomlover (Make sure you're in love - before you move in the heavy stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Okieshooter
"An Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be “extraordinary” for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents’ insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, “2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls,” said Edwin Kneedler."

The same logic could be used to try to justify letting someone who unknowingly received stolen property keep it, because they now depend upon it in some way. The liberal justices, in furthering this line of thinking, have really shown themselves to be the Constitution-hating legislator-wannabe's that we've always known that they were. You expect this from the Administration itself. They're just distorting and lying to get what they want. But a Supreme Court justice should at least be capable of putting together a semi-coherent argument that at least has some shred of appearance of being rooted in the Constitution. But the lib justices pleas to salvage parts of the law or to rework it display an incredible incompetence in addition to their obvious bias. They really should be impeached for such a bold demonstration of Constitutional contempt.

240 posted on 03/28/2012 3:03:09 PM PDT by noiseman (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: noiseman

I wish we could impeach them!


241 posted on 03/28/2012 3:12:34 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Cato in PA
If Justice Kennedy and the conservatives strike down Obamacare, I fully expect us to throw nation-wide parties celebrating its demise.

I'd fully expect to see riots in major urban areas.

242 posted on 03/28/2012 3:22:07 PM PDT by voicereason (Dems, Pubbies...too often a one-sided coin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sonofagun

My asthmatic/allergic 24 yo daughter is on our plan, and it costs us about $100 more in premiums a month. It’s still cheaper for her to be on our plan because she’s always been a sickly kid, so the list of preexisting conditions would exclude her from decent or inexpensive coverage. Congress should find an affordable way to deal with issues of portability and preexisting conditions, etc., because there are some health insurance issues that definitely need tweaking, IMO.

Mrs. Prince of Space


243 posted on 03/28/2012 3:37:05 PM PDT by Prince of Space (Be Breitbart, baby!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

Humiliation? That’s the least this traitor has to fear. This country had better deal with this traitor when the time comes.


244 posted on 03/28/2012 3:41:00 PM PDT by itssme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy; stephenjohnbanker; Gilbo_3; Truth29; sickoflibs; NFHale
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

This assumes that Kennedy will vote to strike the mandate. The SCOTUS has disappointed me before.

245 posted on 03/28/2012 3:47:23 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; Gilbo_3; Truth29; sickoflibs; NFHale

They will toss out the entire vile 2700 page bill.

Nobody could even defend it .....pathetic : )


246 posted on 03/28/2012 3:51:39 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh

I may be wrong, but I remember they put the insurance mandate as the lynchpin of the leglislation to get the treasonous Dems to vote for it.

It would be so merciful if it was all struck down. The Marxists have so much poison, control and oppression built into that leglislation.

It was great that Obama went after the Christians in the way he did. It was just a small shout out from hell as to what’s to come. He woke the “social justice” Catholics up.


247 posted on 03/28/2012 3:59:03 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker; Gilbo_3; Truth29; sickoflibs; NFHale
They will toss out the entire vile 2700 page bill. Nobody could even defend it .....pathetic : )

I hope so, and hope it doesn't rise from the grave (e, g. expansions of medicare/medicaid). Things are bad enough even if obamacare disappears.

248 posted on 03/28/2012 4:01:37 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

Comment #249 Removed by Moderator

Comment #250 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-323 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