Skip to comments.
Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare
Newsmax ^
| MARCH 25, 2010
| David A. Patten
Posted on 03/26/2010 7:46:59 PM PDT by RobinMasters
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 201-202 next last
To: RobinMasters
There are 9 people standing between our liberty and tyranny.
Pray to the Almighty that the judge is right.
61
posted on
03/26/2010 8:26:26 PM PDT
by
crz
To: gov_bean_ counter
I am putting it at about 6 to 3. Hopefully. But 5 to 4 is alright. As long as they strike it down.
62
posted on
03/26/2010 8:27:23 PM PDT
by
crz
To: gov_bean_ counter
And despite all that it will still be a 5-4 decision
____________________________________________________________
And that is a sad state of affairs. Those judges have a solemn duty to interpret the Constitution and instead some of them choose to, “legislate from the bench.” Pathetic.
To: AmishDude
Rep. John Boehner of OH said he would DEFUND it on Jan 2011 if we can win the House. We should unless the election is rigged.
DEFUND DEFUND DEFUND and dump the RINOs like McCain.
64
posted on
03/26/2010 8:30:04 PM PDT
by
Frantzie
(McCain=Obama's friend. McCain called AMERICANS against amnesty - "racists")
To: RobinMasters
Our entire future will come down to whether Anthony Kennedy had a good BM that AM.
65
posted on
03/26/2010 8:30:37 PM PDT
by
Travis McGee
(---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
To: HiTech RedNeck
Economic-based regulation of the private production and use of a fungible product (same thing that happened in Wickard) is not quite the same as regulation of the simple existence of people, unless people are also considered fungible.To Democrats we are.
66
posted on
03/26/2010 8:31:36 PM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: RobinMasters; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Add me / Remove me
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
67
posted on
03/26/2010 8:32:48 PM PDT
by
narses
("lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi")
To: RobinMasters
EIGHT YEARS!?!?!?!?!?
I don't think so.
I believe the USSC has the authority to reach down whenever they choose (though it's not considered good form) and decide a case of national import.
Look at the 2000 election and Florida.
68
posted on
03/26/2010 8:33:25 PM PDT
by
Mariner
To: Mister Muggles
Good question. If you get an answer to these questions would you let me know? Thanks.
69
posted on
03/26/2010 8:33:41 PM PDT
by
hstacey
To: RobinMasters
The Judge is awesome! Go Judge!
To: cmj328
How can they stack against Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy?
71
posted on
03/26/2010 8:35:15 PM PDT
by
Hostage
To: Mister Muggles
I have an honest question to Freepers here...If the suits filed against Obamacare make it to the SC, what happens to the healthcare industry in the meantime? Dont the suits need to advance thru the regular Federal Court System first? Can leftist Fed judges delay and slow the process intentionally? Couldnt this take a really long time to happen; and by the time the SC rules...the healthcare industry in this country is already destroyed?At least two of the challenges are being brought by state attorneys general, or groups of them, and I believe state suits against the feds can sometimes (always?) go directly to SCOTUS.
72
posted on
03/26/2010 8:35:42 PM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: HiTech RedNeck
So the case in N VA district (rocket docket) filed by VA AG Ken Cuccinelli’s injuction fails in that court it goes to SCOTUS?
Anyone know how long it will take?
73
posted on
03/26/2010 8:35:44 PM PDT
by
Frantzie
(McCain=Obama's friend. McCain called AMERICANS against amnesty - "racists")
To: Lucky9teen
I thought Janet too but it didn’t fit in the context of the headline. We can hope and pray the judge is right. My sense is, he is. I don’t think so many state AG’s would be filing suit if this were a solid, constitutional piece of legislation.
74
posted on
03/26/2010 8:35:47 PM PDT
by
EDINVA
To: Lucky9teen
“For a minute there I was totally confused...thinking Janet Napolitano...!?!”
LOL;)
To: EDINVA
Even those who think the chances are slim, would rather try it in the hopes their economies won’t be utterly wrecked.
76
posted on
03/26/2010 8:38:02 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: RobinMasters
How many insurance companies are gonna be history when the health czar decides it to be so?
77
posted on
03/26/2010 8:38:03 PM PDT
by
Slyfox
To: devere
Then we better hope the five conservatives on the court last that long and a conservative is elected in 2012. I just don’t believe all 5 will hang on through a 2nd Obama term.
To: Mister Muggles
The McCollum lawsuit (lead suit of 14 states) is in Federal Court first.
This suit is requesting a preliminary injunction of Obama’s law until after the hearing is completed. That means we should be hearing in the next weeks (lawsuit is on the rocket docket per what I have read) about whether court has granted prelim injunction.
If McCollum can get prelim injunction, then Obamacare stops until hearing concluded. Whoever wins first round in federal court, the opposition will same-day appeal to Supreme Court. If Obama loses first round and runs to Supremes, he will ask prelim injunction be removed if it is in force. McCollum will argue for it to be left in effect while Supremes make decision.
If McCollum loses, he will run to Supremes and ask for injunction I believe.
79
posted on
03/26/2010 8:42:28 PM PDT
by
Hostage
To: TheStickman
I like the Virgina AG approach. Obamacare is all or nothing. It all stands or it is struck down if any part is unconstitutional. The AG there says that it violates state statute by requiring purchase of insurance which the state law prohibits. The feds will claim authority under the 14 amendment(interstate commerce) but the AG makes clear that there is no commerce, interstate or otherwise if a party chooses not to purchase insurance. That is where the obama’s edict fails the test. How can the law penalize individuals for failing to engage in commerce, then claim they have the authority under “interstate commerce”. It sounds like they want to claim that failing to engage in interstate commerce is within their authority when in fact there has to be interstate commerce for the 14th amendment to apply.
80
posted on
03/26/2010 8:44:43 PM PDT
by
BOBWADE
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 201-202 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson