Obama’s Law Professor: ‘I Wouldn’t Bet’ on Obamacare Surviving Next Legal Challenge

National Review -- The corner ^ | 7-11-14 | Joel Gehrke

[brownsfan]

Pfffft, both parties want this kind of power. They’ll fix it, obamacare isn’t going anywhere, unless it’s an expansion to single payer.

[Tzimisce]

I believe it will survive the next court challenge.

The Ruling Class is tired of being constrained by the Constitution and so they’re going to dump it.

[Little Ray]

It will survive just fine. Roberts will decide it was a “typo.”

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The only goal is to overwhelm the system. That's pretty much a done deal.

[Fair Paul]

I thought if one part of Obamacare wasn’t implemented the entire thing was voided. What happened to that?

[Signalman]

Tribe suggested that the case will, like the individual mandate challenge before it, hinge on Chief Justice John Roberts’s decision.

Will Roberts decide correctly, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, this time?

[ChildOfThe60s]

Will Roberts decide correctly, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, this time?

No, they own him.

[Paladin2]

Wickard vs. Filburn is sure hanging tough.

[boomstick]

This one isn’t a constitutional issue. It’s just an issue of whether the implementation is consistent with the law. I think this is an easy case of making the dems eat their own vomit, and (assuming it gets to the USSC) Roberts shoves it down their throats, with relish.

[Talisker]

Tribe suggested that the case will, like the individual mandate challenge before it, hinge on Chief Justice John Roberts’s decision. “He would be asking himself the hard question: ‘Is it so clear under existing law that it has to be construed in this literal and somewhat bizarre way . . . that subsidies or tax credits cannot be provided on the federal exchanges, or is it sufficiently ambiguous that it gives me the necessary legal wiggle room’ [to side with the administration once again?]” Tribe said.

Tribe's so full of it. Robert's ruling was as strict as possible - that strictness MADE his ruling.

[Jacquerie]

With the exception of Roe, no decision has done more harm to our republic than Wickard.

[Clump]

The expansion of Congress's commerce clause powers was inevitable after the ill advised passage of the 17th Amendment.
It's all so clear now that the carefully devised separation of powers set up by the Founders was nothing less than shattered by said Amendment and the subsequent expansion of federal power to regulate everything under the sun.
I will note that for all the crap that we (especially me) have given Roberts, at least he didn't join the reasoning of the four lefties in upholding zerocare.
He was careful to not allow the government's understanding of the commerce clause to uphold the horrible law.
His language regarding the commerce clause combined with the dissent actually reflects a slight chipping away of Wickard IMHO.
In this case it will be easy (if Roberts is inclined) to shove this case right down their throats. The language is crystal clear and far from ambiguous. The IRS is basically just asking the court to wink at the issue and say “well that's not what they really meant”.

[Jacquerie]

Quite right. The restoration of republican freedom is possible only on repeal of the 17th.

Wickard also flew in the face of our Framers, who specifically rejected expansive powers over any and all things remotely related to commerce.

The Rotten Basis of Obamacare.

[Clump]

It’s nice to have exchanges with people here who understand the Constitution.
I actually do practice (not teach:)) Constitutional law so I’m pretty sure when I give my thoughts on these topics.
The sad thing is that the court could really be a for for good in protecting liberty if it wasn’t so politicized.
There are some very complicated issues, but to have a sure four votes (presumably) to allow this IRS rule is just pitiful. If only there was one honest liberal on the court it would be nice. But no, there isn’t.

[Jacquerie]

You were spot on regarding the 17th.

Absent the 17th, if we still had a senate of the states, we would never have had a single member of Scotus who was hostile to the 9th and 10th amendments.

Scotus has done enormous damage to our republic, all because the states weren’t around to defend themselves.

[Clump]

Sadly it’s too difficult to explain the horrors of the 17th Amendment for there to ever be a serious push to repeal it.
I wonder what percentage of the public even know what the 17th Amendment did or how things were before it.

[Jacquerie]

Very few.

On the bright side, I had a 45 minute meeting with my state rep last year. He warmed to the repeal idea, and FL subsequently sent delegates to the last Assembly of States in Indianapolis this past June.

I've been pressing at FR for 17th repeal since its 100 year anniversary in April 2013, and have been amazed at the level of resistance.

Have you visited conventionofstates.com?

[BunnySlippers]

Bookmark

[Clump]

The problem I see is that the knee jerk reaction to the idea of repealing the 17th A is that people don’t want to cede the power to choose their US Senator.
It takes a full blown conversation with a thinking person to explain how dividing power (even one’s own) has the effect of expanding liberty.
Keep up the fight.
Maybe the states will wake up and reclaim the power that was ultimately designed to preserve our liberty.
A convention of the states would be the way to go for sure.