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

Skip to comments.

Why the Supreme Court Will Strike Down All of Obamacare
Forbes ^ | April 5, 2012 | Peter Ferrara

Posted on 04/06/2012 6:24:41 AM PDT by libstripper

Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the Obamacare law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (emphasis added)

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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: obamacare; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last
To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
...the few provisions of the law that *DID* kick in right away (which I would argue were the only provisions that were really meant for consumption) are not all that bad - like incentivising adoption of electronic medical records, incentivising quality care with ACO’s and reforms that really do make a good deal of sense (at least to me).

I appreciate your optimism that the provisions you cite seem "not all that bad" from your perspective.

Keep in mind that you're looking in from the outside while some of us are getting hit by them on the inside. While they may seem to have laudable goals to you, the provisions you cite are just the same onerous top-down, inefficient Federal mandates that never work as intended elsewhere.

Why would you believe that arbitrary, restrictive Federal regulations would work any better in a hugely complex system like medicine than they would anywhere else in the economy?

41 posted on 04/06/2012 7:29:35 AM PDT by doc11355
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

#1 - decide Constitutionality of State and Federal Laws,
#2 - decide disputes between Sovereign States.

Obama, how effing hard is that to understand, imbecile!

If Obama wants to mandate like this then effing start the proceedings for a new Constitutional Amendment and see how far you get, loser. This process has the requirements for a “true” majority and consensus of ALL states, not just a bunch of tyrant Democrats you happened to have pulled together at an instant in time. Choke on it, loser.


42 posted on 04/06/2012 7:29:39 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
This article (published in Forbes) by Peter Ferrara that explains the reasons Obamacare will be ruled unconstitutional is definitely one of the most concise I've read. It makes the sometimes convoluted language and legalisms associated with this kind of constitutional case easily understandable to those of us who are not attorneys. I've bookmarked it for future reference when debating the issue (online) with Obama sycophants.
43 posted on 04/06/2012 7:33:52 AM PDT by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Overturning Obamacare is so simple, even a caveman could do it. They built the law forcing health insurers to cover everyone at the same rate. It became obvious that people weren’t going to buy coverage until they needed it which would cause the pool of payers to be only very sick people. The only way to get the pool of people to contribute was to add the individual mandate and if you didn’t pay you were assessed a fine or tax or penalty. By doing this the federal government took over policing action which is a state responsibility. The government went way beyond their limited, enumerated and regulated power and tried to insert their authority to make people do things, which states control. Even Kagan and Sotomayor should know enough about the law to vote Obamacare down. If they don’t they have no business being Supreme Court justices.


44 posted on 04/06/2012 7:33:52 AM PDT by Harley (Will Rogers never met Harry Reid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ngat
Yeah, been through that argument. I just go with the 1860 elections to keep it simple, but signing date of the tariff law suits me.

King Lincoln killed the republic and we can argue over the exact date, but the republic is still dead none the less. Sic semper tyrannis.

45 posted on 04/06/2012 7:34:06 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sport
I'm more optimistic, but not rolling in glee.

I think the Illegal made a fatal error in his 2010 State of the Union Speech when he called out the Court for its decision in the Citizens United case. Justice Kennedy, the very man he needed most to persuade in the inevitably upcoming Obamacare case and the Court's most mercurial justice, wrote the Citizens United decision. Hence, the Illegal's attack on that decision was a direct, uncalled for attack on Kennedy himself. Add to that the Illegal's current, fanatical, attack on the Catholic Church for defending its most basic doctrine, with Kennedy being a Catholic, and you have a perfect recipe for Kennedy playing, "don't get mad, get even."

Indeed, even if Kennedy cast an initial, preliminary vote in favor of Obamacare, I suspect the Illegal's most recent ignorant and inflammatory diatribe against the Court might cause Kennedy to change his vote. Hence, my guarded optimism.

46 posted on 04/06/2012 7:36:39 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: doc11355

Well I’m actually more of an insider than you might think. Believe that or not - but I see things from the inside looking out rather than the outside looking in.

Health care is the last major industry to go electronic. Imagine if the airline reservation system functioned like a doctor’s office or a hospital with paper charts and scribbled notes? To me it only makes sense that health care needs to enter the 21st century with respect to how information is handled. I never claimed that it was easy - only necessary.


47 posted on 04/06/2012 7:41:03 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

I am just curious how the Senate RATS could break Congressional rules and pass this bill through reconcilation, and then get away with it? does not seem right?


48 posted on 04/06/2012 7:49:50 AM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah

“Geez lady, you’re just a Conservative hayseed. What do you know?”

I am suitably chastened...I yield to the wisdom of TOTUS...where’s my Kool-aid?


49 posted on 04/06/2012 7:55:06 AM PDT by mrs. a (It's a short life but a merry one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

Oh, that’s been addressed often enough. It passed on party lines, and that only because some Dems got strong-armed/paid-off to comply.


50 posted on 04/06/2012 7:59:41 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten

I agree that automating records is a good thing. However, I don’t think automation should be forced by government on the medical profession or any other.


51 posted on 04/06/2012 7:59:58 AM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Harley

“Even Kagan and Sotomayor should know enough about the law to vote Obamacare down. If they don’t they have no business being Supreme Court justices.”

Right, but so?


52 posted on 04/06/2012 8:01:28 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (I'm not willing to light my hair on fire to support Willard. He is what he is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Guess We Can’t


53 posted on 04/06/2012 8:07:17 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten

C’mon, getting the thing passed took an enormous effort & cost - no way would subsequent vacating thereof by SCOTUS be part of some nefarious plan to make it into a 2012 election issue. The whole point of most of it kicking in after the election was so voters & SCOTUS wouldn’t notice how horrible it is; that’s not consistent with some scheme to get SCOTUS to overturn it pre-election.

“The big win of my administration was overturned by the SC for you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-us levels of moronic. Vote for me.”

You do realize that the whole point of incentivising adoption of electronic medical records was so the gov’t could get its hands on your 4-th Amendment protected private information, right? once they have the details of your health, they can tax & regulate YOU far beyond what Orwell imagined. Really good reforms were not included, and Congress (as usual) is exempt from the whole thing (huh, wonder why). A smidgeon of good does not justify the overwhelming bad.


54 posted on 04/06/2012 8:09:40 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
OBAMA BACK ATCHA, BACK ATCHA' BARACK
55 posted on 04/06/2012 8:15:50 AM PDT by FrankR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrs. a

Leave it to Obama to shove so much wrong into a portion of one sentence. It wasn’t a strong majority by any stretch and EVERY bill is passed by a democratically elected Congress!


56 posted on 04/06/2012 8:17:10 AM PDT by Personal Responsibility (Obama 2012: Dozens of MSNBC viewers can't be wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Absolutely spot on analysis IMHO!

Thanks for the post!


57 posted on 04/06/2012 8:22:50 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper; The Great RJ
Thanks for posting this excellent article.

RJ says, "Obama’s attack on the SCOTUS wasn't done in ignorance of the law but to convince the ignorant . . . ."

Inasmuch as the complete statement, broken down, point by point, failed to meet a standard of truth on any level, just how ignorant does he believe American voters are?

On the other hand, where are the articulate voices among the potential GOP candidates who can and will inform and educate the electorate about these things?

Opportunities are being missed for a "teaching moment" for the benefit of keeping the flame of liberty burning for future generations.

58 posted on 04/06/2012 8:27:19 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Because the courts can’t judge the rules of the rules of the House and Senate. The House and Senate of the time considered the bill passed. The fact that the rules were twisted is outside the jurisdiction of the courts. The Constitution gives each house of the Congress sole jurisdiction over it’s own rules.


59 posted on 04/06/2012 8:27:46 AM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SW6906
Best article I’ve read explaining why it is unconstitutional.

I agree completely.

I particularly like all the citations of precedent.

60 posted on 04/06/2012 8:33:22 AM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 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