Skip to comments.Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law
Posted on 03/28/2012 9:44:18 AM PDT by Bill Buckner
click here to read article
A lot can happen in three months.
>> “There is an unseemly conservative obsession with the mandate, IMO” <<
What is so unseemly?
The mandate is the essence of what is wrong with Obamacare. The rest of the bill just tampers with a medical system that has completely failed its prime mission anyway. (The Hypocratic oath has been turned on its head)
Great point...Ginsberg’s attitude makes the point that we have been making for years: the left legislates from the bench and sees nothing wrong in doing so. She spoke in an unguarded moment...her comment needs to be played up.
Now that's saying it as it is.
Pray without ceasing for this court!
I wonder if we'd be stuck with those regulations now. Is it like Bin Laden, once he's dead, he's dead? Did the law give them the power to pass regulations, that then become set in stone? Or do these regulations have to go away once the law that said they could pass them goes away? Like the birth control thing...does that regulation stand or does overturning the law now mean that the government no longer has the authority to enforce that regulation?
Yes, like Obama could get anything through the current House. Yes. Right. Sure.
More spin from our radical communist muslim leader.
The bill had no legitimate purpose; it needs to be chucked.
Congress should set out to educate the people that they do not need doctors, nor hospitals nor insurance; all that is needed is a Real Food Diet to be healthy.
My dad was right.
If the court’s liberals had any respect for the Constitution and Rule of Law, they would join with the conservatives in ridding this nation of this assault on our liberty and economy.
You’re mistaken. Bush during his 2nd term appeared to have capitulated and was listening to his liberal wife for advice. The first SCOTUS he proposed was Harriet Myers who would have been an unmitigated liberal disaster.
It was a group of staunch conservatives outside of Congress that got in front of Bush and said “NO!”. They brought Roberts. Later they brought Alito. One of these conservatives was Fred Thompson of Tennessee.
“Anyone know whose Constitution she was reading when she said this?”
Anthony McLeod Kennedy (born July 23, 1936) is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, having been appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. Since the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy has often been the "swing vote" on many of the Court's politically charged 54 decisions.
During Kennedy's time as a California law professor and attorney, he helped California Governor Ronald Reagan draft a state tax proposal.
Kennedy has served in numerous positions during his career, including the California Army National Guard in 1961 and the board of the Federal Judicial Center from 1987 to 1988. He also served on two committees of the Judicial Conference of the United States: the Advisory Panel on Financial Disclosure Reports and Judicial Activities (subsequently renamed the Advisory Committee on Codes of Conduct) from 1979 to 1987, and the Committee on Pacific Territories from 1979 to 1990, which he chaired from 1982 to 1990.
On March 3, 1975, upon Reagan's recommendation, President Gerald Ford nominated Kennedy to the seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that had been vacated by Charles Merton Merrill. Kennedy was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on March 20, 1975, and received his commission on March 24, 1975.
Kennedy said about Griswold v. Connecticut (a privacy case regarding contraceptives), "I really think I would like to draw the line and not talk about the Griswold case so far as its reasoning or its result." He also discussed "a zone of liberty, a zone of protection, a line that's drawn where the individual can tell the Government, 'Beyond this line you may not go.'"
Though appointed by a Republican president, Kennedy is not easily pigeonholed ideologically. He has tended to look at cases individually instead of deciding upon them on the basis of some rigid ideology. As Kennedy said at a reunion of his law clerks, "We always tried to get it right." Georgetown University Law Center professor Randy Barnett has described Kennedy's jurisprudence as "libertarian," although other legal scholars have disagreed.
Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor have been swing votes in many 5-4 and 6-3 decisions on the Rehnquist and Roberts courts. On issues of religion, he holds to a less separationist reading of the Establishment Clause than did O'Connor, favoring a "Coercion Test" that he detailed in County of Allegheny v. ACLU.
Kennedy has supported adding substance to the "liberty" interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which means he supports a constitutional right to abortion in principle, though he has voted to uphold several restrictions on that right, including laws to prohibit partial-birth abortions. He is "tough on crime" and opposes creating constitutional restrictions on the police, especially in Fourth Amendment cases involving searches for illegal drugs, although there are some exceptions, such as his concurrence in Ferguson v. City of Charleston. He also takes a very broad view of constitutional protection for speech under the First Amendment, invalidating a congressional law prohibiting "virtual" child pornography in the 2002 decision, Ashcroft v. ACLU.
Kennedy has joined with Court majorities in decisions favoring states' rights and invalidating federal and state affirmative action programs. He ruled with the majority on Equal Protection grounds in the controversial 2000 Bush v. Gore case that halted continuing recounts in the 2000 presidential election and ended the legal challenge to the election of President George Bush.
Analysis of Supreme Court tenure
Kennedy has reliably issued conservative rulings during most of his tenure, having voted with William Rehnquist as often as any other justice from 1992 to the end of the Rehnquist Court in 2005. In his first term on the court, Kennedy voted with Rehnquist 92 percent of the timemore than any other justice.
On the Roberts Court, Kennedy often decides the outcome of a case. In the 20082009 term, he was in the majority 92 percent of the time. In the 23 decisions in which the justices split 5-to-4, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five. Of those 23 decisions, 16 were strictly along ideological lines, and Kennedy joined the conservative wing of the court 11 times; the liberals, 5.
I think, in this case, Kennedy will see the vast overeach by the Fed's that removes "individual liberty" with such a mandate.
>> “Sending prayers.” <<
How many weeks until they actually rule on this? When can we expect their ruling?
-—Were relying on Kennedy to determine the validity of the US Constitution here.-—
We almost made it to 250 years. Not bad, historically.
It’s strange that a reversion to a (leftist) aristocracy is regarded as “progressive.”
The mandate is to single-payer health care as school choice vouchers are to a government school monopoly. The mandate was created to try to peel off enough Democrat votes from single-payer in the ‘90s to pass a less onerous and more conservative health care bill. Just as conservatives would love school choice vouchers now rather than see kids forced to go to public schools. It’s all very relative. But once a health care mandate is off the table, everyone should be assured single-payer will get a big boost and more unity on the left than it’s ever had before. It will be passed if they get the presidency and Congress again.
"it" is also helping to destroy the US from without as well as within (eg. "Muslim Spring")
Hillary provides Egypt with the cash, while her cohort Ruth Bader Ginsburg provides them with "constitutional advice".
It seemed to me yesterday and the day before that the only one who was solidly in Zero’s camp was Ginsburg.
Breyer probably is also, but he didn’t ask many questions.
Surprisingly, Sotomayer also had a very skeptical tone to her questions!
” Its strange that a reversion to a (leftist) aristocracy is regarded as progressive.
Most thoughtful post of the day!
To wit.....why are Pelosi, Reid and Obama regarded as “LIBERALS” ?
Kennedy appears to be the one most inclined to scrap it, and that is no surprise, since he is the court’s only libertarian.
But.........seeing the Liberal members on the Court, they are strongly subverting the correct and valid legal guidelines described in the Constitution. If it were not for Kennedy, we would be losing this right now.
The Democrats on the court, clearly vote along their Marxist Party line. They have no regard for the legalities clearly spelled out in great detail in the Constitution. They avoid the rule of law, and vote on the grounds of discovery. They are in this to corrupt the foundation of the Constitution at every opportunity.
Their votes are clearly against the Rule of Law, which should automatically be grounds for impeachment.
If the whole thing is overturned, it brands Obama a failure, and he likely gets defeated and fades away.
If the whole thing is upheld, it will make the rise of the Tea Party in 2009 look like a pee-wee soccer game. All Hell will break loose on the right and Obama and the Democrat majorities will be thrown out in an effort to repeal ObamaCare.
” If the courts liberals had any respect for the Constitution and Rule of Law, “
Simple, they are NOT liberals.....they are radical leftists.
If it is struck down, the Pubs must MUST bring
into question the competence of the administration
and focus on the lost time and money spent on this
As far as Ginsburg “salvaging” any thing from it,
that is not her job and should she attempt such a
thing should be impeached along with Kagan for
not recusing herself.
That’s my opinion.
Yeah, well, color me skeptical, particularly since she helped get it passed in the first place. Maybe.
Agreed. I feel like the MSM is playing rope-a-dope.
Methinks we are being setup...
Sounds like Soros didn’t hire enough cheap college interns to write a good health care bill. Oh well, you get what you pay for!
” I think, in this case, Kennedy will see the vast overeach by the Fed’s that removes “individual liberty” with such a mandate. “
With Obamacare, substitute “indentured servitude” for “individual liberty”
Kagen did, never heard Sotomayer was involved...
I doubt they will humiliate the Court in order to save hussein his well deserved humiliation.
We have to remember this is no ordinary administration. They have shown they are extremely adept at screwing the pooch at every turn. It's entirely possible the Court will find no way to save them from themselves.
On a side note as a Red Sox fan I hate your name......
Sorry, talk about profiling! I tend to lump them together in my mind. I did mean Kagan, not Sotomayer.
Progressivism = Reversion to Ancient Barbarism
Abortion -> Spartan Eugenics
Homosexualism -> Sodom and Gommorrah
Racial Politics -> Primitive Tribalism
Obamacare -> Caesarean Dictatorship
” If it is struck down, the Pubs must MUST bring
into question the competence of the administration
and focus on the lost time and money spent on this
The Pubs “must” ?
In the past month, Boehner has:
1) Taken Rush Limbaugh to the wood shed
2) Spoken in favor of trial re: Trayvon
3) Warned Republicans not to criticise Obama, while overseas...regardless of his traitorious doings.
No, we need to clean house in Congress next.
The mandate is nothing but a pay-off to buy the acquiescence of insurance companies. Obamacare was Single Payer’s foot in the door, in preparation to its grand entrance in 2014.
Pass it to find out what’s in the bill
This is a big effing deal man
If Obama loses in November and Ginsburg and Breyer immediately resign so that Obama can nominate their replacement, there is NO WAY that the Senate will vote to confirm prior to the new president being sworn in on January 20, 2013 (at which time the new president would surely remove the nominations and nominate two other candidates), much less before the new Senate (which will have a GOP majority) takes over on January 3, 2013. There are 47 Republicans in the Senate, and even with a few RINOs there, it is unfathomable that we would fail to get 41 of them to filibuster last-minute nominations by a defeated, lame-duck Democrat president.
If Ginsburg and Breyer wanted Obama to name their replacements, they should have retired in 2009 or 2010.
Yes, of all the justices of the last two decades, Kennedy has done the least damage to the bill of rights.
Hee Hee! That’s funny.
“Im not sure why they just dont give a tax credit for insurance payments.”
Might it be the people they want to bring into the system don’t pay any taxes, or not much. How can you give them a credit? The math doesn’t work out. That’s why.
KNEEDLER: ... we think that severability is a matter of statutory interpretation. It should be resolved by looking at the structure and the text of the Act, and the Court may look at legislative history to figure out what the text and structure mean with respect to severability. We don't -
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? [banning cruel and unusual punishment] You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?