Obama says the Supreme Court isn't going to overturn Obamacare.
Link
Do you agree?
This applies only the individual mandate that requires people to have personal health insurance.
Yes, upheld
No, goodbye Obamacare
Obama says the Supreme Court isn't going to overturn Obamacare.
Link
Do you agree?
This applies only the individual mandate that requires people to have personal health insurance.
I honestly have no idea. Counting the votes, I think I can give Obamacare 4 solids and then several maybes. As I understand it, the question is whether the commerce clause can be interpreted to require someone to engage in interstate commerce as opposed to the state simply regulating it.
Kennedy is a maybe... God only knows what Kennedy is going to do on any given day.
Scalia is maybe; before someone gets histrionic on me, in a 2005 concurring opinion, Scalia wrote:
more here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rt-verbruggen#“The court [has] recognized that [non-economic activity can] be regulated as ‘an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated,’” Scalia wrote. Then, he endorsed a rather broad interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause: “As the Court put it in Wrightwood Dairy, where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, ‘it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.’”
So, Scalia is a question mark as well.
Thomas is Conservative and generally writes pretty unenlightened opinions supporting whatever the Republican cause du jour is. He has written some positively scary stuff. I used to be ambivalent about Thomas until he wrote in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that he believed in a national security exception to all of our civil rights. Scary as hell.
Alito and Roberts will vote predictably with the right wing.
If either Kennedy or Scalia vote with the left-leaning justices, Obama wins. And if I'm giving odds, I give Obamacare 60/40 odds of surviving the SCOTUS.
ETA: Anyone who says they know what the SCOTUS is going to do here is completely full of ****.
Last edited by Midtowner; 8/15/2011 at 03:41 PM.
At least the mandatory regulation that you have to have insurance. I dont think they shoot the whole thing down.
Posse Member hoping for middle manager, Yep , I dont know ****
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Quote:
Originally Posted by C&CDean
I'm a tolerant mother****er.
I think we need to rewrite the constitution and start from scratch.
Originally Posted by badger
Oh hell no.
You think the fortune 500 has too much power now?
I think it is a tossup...though I voted that they would uphold....
Didn't say they should make it.
I'm not really for a forced individual mandate.
I like the part about not being denied for pre-existing conditions.
I like the part about providing healthcare to children.
Having to wait till you're so sick you have to go to the Emergency Room isn't my idea of adequate healthcare. That's what millions of people were forced to do.
5-0
Trump/ Reed 2012
BOY HOWDY !!!!
If I was on the Court, just shooting from the hip and not having read any of the briefs, I'd probably uphold the healthcare bill. The commerce clause has been allowed to control the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and that's what this bill does, or at least it regulates something which has an impact on interstate commerce, which also is kosher.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's a system that's built to allow the insurance companies to either learn how to be responsible citizens, or to create an entitlement expectation in the people and to let the insurance companies hang themselves, resulting in a more nationalized, centralized system, and a country that wants to vote for Dems to save us all.
There hasn't ever been a limit to what the feds can do with regard to the regulation of interstate commerce, no areas which are expressly off-limits, except stuff that's not interstate commerce. Unless we want to make a new rule up from whole cloth, I don't see how this is overturned, but judges can be some creative folks. It'll be interesting to see how this comes out.
To be clear, I don't agree that it's good policy to have a commerce clause which affords Congress unlimited power in that area, but that appears to be what we have. At this point, the judiciary is the wrong branch of government to be able to do something about that.
I think the individual mandate gets struck down. Forcing people to buy from private companies will be a bridge too far for the SCOTUS.
If the Dems would have went the full Monty and passed 'single payer' they would have been in the clear.
Single payer... payed for how?
I'm not advocating it.. I am just making the point that I think it would have been found constitutional.
We put it on the USA credit card along with everything else.
Behold the pale horse. The man who sat on him was death, and Hell followed with him.
Olevet Posse Pistolero
Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 2015.
Because this is attached to the tax code, in my opinion, congress doesn't need additional justifications. It's easy to frame this just as the mortgage deduction is framed. Are we forcing peopel to buy homes? (And, please spare me with a lecture on the difference between a credit, a penalty, and a deduction. None of that seems material to the argument.)
Now to the Froze's quote.. I agree with the rationale but I can't see how insurance companies will remain solvent considering the penalty for not having insurance was reduced so drastically. They needed a disincentive for those who would wait to get insurance until sick and they hardly succeeded.
Last edited by jkjsooner; 8/15/2011 at 08:03 PM.
Here is some of the ruling from the 11th circuit.
The fact that Congress has never before exercised this supposed authority is telling. . . . Few powers, if any, could be more attractive to Congress than compelling the purchase of certain products. Yet even if we focus on the modern era, when congressional power under the Commerce Clause has been at its height, Congress still has not asserted this authority. Even in the face of a Great Depression, a World War, a Cold War, recessions, oil shocks, inflation, and unemployment, Congress never sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher savings rate or greater consumption of American goods, or require every American to purchase a more fuel efficient vehicle.They then say there are only 4 mandates on American citizens:Congress did not require everyone who owns a house in a flood plain to purchase flood insurance. In fact Congress did not even require anyone who chooses to build a new house in a flood plain to buy insurance. Rather Congress created a series of incentives designed to encourage voluntary purchase of flood insurance. . . . Without an ‘individual mandate,’ the flood insurance program has largely been a failure.
Note that none of those mandates involves a private company.serving on juries, registering for the draft, filing tax returns, and responding to the census.
The SCOTUSAlthough health care consumption is pervasive, the plaintiffs correctly note that participation in the market for health care is far less inevitable than participation in markets for basic necessities like food or clothing.never had to address any temporal aspects of congressional regulation. However, the premise of the government’s position — that most people will, at some point in the future, consume health care — reveals that the individual mandate is even further removed from traditional exercises of Congress’s commerce power.
No way does this court allow the mandate...Obamacare is finished all thats left is the stalling...
Ok lawyer types, explain something to me.
How can we be forced to buy auto insurance and not health insurance?
The only thing difference I see is with car insurance you're protecting OTHER people too, not just yourself.
You are only forced to purchase car insurance if you CHOOSE to drive a motor vehicle on PUBLIC property (roads)! I cannot choose to live out of the public, declare that I do not want access to health care and not be required to PAY for a PRIVATE product......according to the bill that passed.
Liberty sucks but I think it should be protected at the expense of little johnny not getting his "free" Ritalin.
oh...and I don't have a JD nor did I sleep at a holiday inn.
Re: Supreme Court upholding Obamacare?
"Obama says"....is that like Simon...?
-Unemployment under 8%?
-deficit cut in half?
-Tea Part as terrorists?
..............................
How can there be too many children?
That is like saying there are too many flowers.
Mother Teresa
-------------------
(Or, too many tax-payers!)
Wow. Your capitalized words have convinced me.
It's still a question of the commerce clause, and any limits to it are just making up new law.
That's the question--is the SCOTUS ready to make from whole cloth a brand new exception to the commerce clause? It's possible, but as I discussed before, unlikely.
Posting Permissions
