Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Scalia: Health Care Mandate ‘Can’t Be a Pig’
Justice Antonin Scalia continued a recent media push against the Supreme Court decision on the 2010 health care law Sunday
In an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” the Reagan appointee repeated his argument that the health insurance mandate in the law is unconstitutional, saying the majority opinion that it was a tax is not backed up
“You don’t interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can’t be a pig,” Scalia said. “What my dissent said … was simply that there is no way to regard this penalty as a tax. It simply does not bear that meaning. In order to save the constitutionality, you cannot give the text a meaning it will not bear”
Describing it only as “unusual,” Scalia declined to offer criticism of President Barack Obama’s remarks in April in which he stated that the court would be displaying “judicial activism” if it strikes down the health care law. He said it had no effect on his decision on the case
“What can he do to me, or to any of us?” Scalia said. “We have life tenures, and we have it precisely so we won’t be influenced by politics, by threats from anybody”
Scalia said the court is not political at all but that 5-4 decisions should be no surprise.
“Republicans have been looking for originalists and textualists and restrained judges for 50 years, and Democrats have been looking for the opposite, for people who believe in Roe v. Wade,” he said
In a separate interview on “Face the Nation,” retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said she was not surprised by the breakdown of the decision either
“Well, it tells that they don’t, they don’t always agree and that’s what it should be. For goodness sakes, that’s why you have a court,” she said. “And you have nine members so it’s uneven, you’re not going to split evenly. If they all vote, it can be decided 5 to 4”
She added that she did not think the close decision was a sign that the court is trending “one way or the other,” noting that it was “a very sensitive case with political connotations”
O’Connor declined to say how she would have voted, noting that she did not read the briefs or hear the oral arguments
Also appointed by Reagan, O’Connor retired in 2006 and was replaced by Justice Samuel Alito, who voted against the health care law
In his interview, Scalia said he has no immediate retirement plans and declined to say whether he would wait for a Republican president to retire, but he gave one hint
“Of course I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything that I’ve tried to do for 25, 26 years"
rollcall.com/news/Justice-Antonin-Scalia-Health-Care-Mandate-Can-Not-Be-a-Pig-216540-1.html?pos=hln
 
Justice Scalia is a blessing to the court and to the US. I couldn’t understand when Roberts was appointed, that he was IMMEDIATELY elevated to Chief Justice. It seemed as if he stepped over Scalia who IMO was the obvious choice.

I have also been continuously impressed with Justice Alito. Even when in dissent, even when the ONLY dissenter, he is clearly an originalist, not a re-writer of the Constitution.

God save us from such horrible and misguided decisions. This goes right with Roe and Kelo…both horrible horrible decisions with ramifications that poisoned society from the time they were placed in effect.

Lisa
 
I haven’t read this thread, so if this has already been posted, please ignore. Constitutional lawyers at We the People Foundation have their say:
**NOT SO FAST - OBAMACARE “TAX” IS UN-APPORTIONED
Therefore, It’s Constitutionally Prohibited**
Of all the mandates in the Constitution, there is only one that is repeated twice: direct taxes must be apportioned. Judge Roberts has admitted this. Writing for the majority in the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare, Roberts confessed direct taxes “must be apportioned among the states.” To avoid this constitutional restraint, Roberts falsely declared Obamacare’s individual mandate is not a tax on the ownership of personal property and “is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several states.” The decision is erroneous. Most troubling is the fact that both the majority and the dissent refused to deal honestly with the issue of direct taxes.
 
Excellent article (no mandates) because it demonstrates for about the ONE BILLIONTH TIME that yes there IS an alternative to Obamacare and that it is both less expensive and allows greater access: the two goals Obamacare was supposed to address but did not.

Lisa
 
Personally I feel that the high-risk pools offered by the states would be the ultimate solution. In Illinois I’ve seen the premiums decline the more insureds come on board. (It’s administered by BCBS.) As more and more states opt out of Obamacare, these high-risk pools could actually expand without Congressional intervention.
 
Cook Medical shelves Midwest expansion plans
Cook Medical Inc. had been planning to open five new manufacturing plants over the next five years in small communities around the Midwest, including Indiana, but has shelved those plans because of the hit it will take from a new U.S. tax on medical devices.
The Bloomington-based medical device maker estimates it will pay between $20 million and $30 million once the tax takes effect in January, Pete Yonkman, executive vice president of strategic business units at Cook Medical, said this week.
The 2.3-percent tax on sales of all medical devices was created as part of President Obama’s 2010 health reform law to help pay for its expansion of health insurance coverage to as many as 30 million more Americans. The tax is projected to raised about $2.9 billion per year.
“It is a challenge for us, no doubt,” Yonkman said in an interview after the IBJ Life Sciences Power Breakfast on Wednesday (see video below). “We have fewer resources to be able to spend on those kinds of projects.”
ibj.com/cook-medical-shelves-midwest-expansion-plans/PARAMS/article/35735
 
Obamacare Rationing Begins, States Cut Prescription Drug Benefits
When Democrats in Congress pushed the Obamacare bill through, pro-life groups warned about rationing that could take place as a result. Although liberal groups and the mainstream media laughed at the projections, they are now coming to pass.
Health indicates states are now moving in the director of capping or cutting prescription drug benefits.

Illinois Medicaid recipients have been limited to four prescription drugs as the state becomes the latest to cap how many medicines it will cover in the state-federal health insurance program for the poor.

Sixteen states impose a monthly limit on the number of drugs Medicaid recipients can receive and seven states have either enacted such caps or tightened them in the past two years, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KHN is a program of the foundation). The limits vary across the country. Mississippi has a limit of two brand-name drugs. In Arkansas adults are limited to up six drugs a month.

Since June, Alabama has had the nation’s stingiest Medicaid drug benefit after limiting adults to one brand-name drug. HIV and psychiatric drugs were excluded. On Aug. 1 the state will relax the limit to its previous level — four brand-name drugs — after the restriction saved more money than expected and the state received money as part of a settlement with a pharmaceutical company.

Other states with Medicaid drug limits are Arkansas, California, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

lifenews.com/2012/07/31/obamacare-rationing-begins-states-cut-prescription-drug-benefits
 
I voted no. I think Justice Roberts went far afield to call the mandate a tax.
It was a Pontius Pilate kind of a ruling. Trying to please everyone, but if not everyone, then at least the loudest and meanest.

For all the chanting of the mantra “separation of Church and State …” which is NOT in the Constitution but a musing of Jefferson; it seems the State can intrude at will, and with extreme prejudice.

Rendering unto Caesar here would be colluding in a Mortal Sin … especially where taking part in the issuance of abortifacients is involved.

It seems that the state, at least that part of it represented by the proponents of this nonsense cloaked in the virtuous emotional camouflage of “health care”; is at war with the Church.

It struck at what it viewed the weakest link in the chain - artificial contraception, so as to portray the Church as radical and a silly anachronism that may be socially reviled.

John 15:17 This I command you: love one another. 18 "If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. 20 Remember the word I spoke to you, ‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21 And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me.
 
I voted no. I think Justice Roberts went far afield to call the mandate a tax.
It was a Pontius Pilate kind of a ruling. Trying to please everyone, but if not everyone, then at least the loudest and meanest.

For all the chanting of the mantra “separation of Church and State …” which is NOT in the Constitution but a musing of Jefferson; it seems the State can intrude at will, and with extreme prejudice.

Rendering unto Caesar here would be colluding in a Mortal Sin … especially where taking part in the issuance of abortifacients is involved.

It seems that the state, at least that part of it represented by the proponents of this nonsense cloaked in the virtuous emotional camouflage of “health care”; is at war with the Church.

**It struck at what it viewed the weakest link in the chain - artificial contraception, so as to portray the Church as radical and a silly anachronism that may be socially reviled. **John 15:17 This I command you: love one another. 18 "If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. 20 Remember the word I spoke to you, ‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21 And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me.
Excellent analysis and my sentiments exactly! Our Senator kept LYING in his pressers saying “A few right wing radicals want to prevent women from getting birth control!”

Total and complete lie. Of course the MSM failed to question his rather ridiculous pontificating. Even the more ‘friendly’ news sources focus on contraception rather than the free exercise of religion which is the underlying and real issue.

Also appreciate reminding everyone that “separation of church and state” is NOT part of the Constitution, Bill of Rights etc. People have heard this so often they must think Moses brought it down from the mountain top

Lisa
 
Excellent analysis and my sentiments exactly! Our Senator kept LYING in his pressers saying “A few right wing radicals want to prevent women from getting birth control!”

Total and complete lie. Of course the MSM failed to question his rather ridiculous pontificating. Even the more ‘friendly’ news sources focus on contraception rather than the free exercise of religion which is the underlying and real issue.

Also appreciate reminding everyone that “separation of church and state” is NOT part of the Constitution, Bill of Rights etc. People have heard this so often they must think Moses brought it down from the mountain top

Lisa
Thanks Lisa.

The actual document Jefferson is often quoted from is a short, personal letter BACK to the Danbury Baptist Association, which had congratulated him on his election, then complained that their religious rights were considered by some to be a privilege granted and not an inalienable right. By the pre-Revolutionary laws such ‘priveleges’ could be curtailed, monitored, voted upon etc.

Here is the full text of that short letter. Jefferson wasn’t exactly penning legislation here. And in FACT, in context, his “wall of separation” phrase doesn’t look much like a pre-Soviet “freedom from religion” paean to an official atheism either. Note the prayer at the end.

Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.


Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” ***thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. ***

Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

The emphases are mine (bold and underlines). The words are Jefferson’s and so is the fact that his “wall of separation” phrase came directly AFTER his citing of the freedoms that WERE enshrined in the constitution.

Jefferson is hailed, enshrined on Mt. Rushmore, and well known as the author of most of the Constitution. But with the possible exception of Senator Joe Mc Carthy - he may be the most misrepresented American leader. Apparently he was neither atheist or anti-religion as I’ve heard him described by some.

IN context, that “wall of separation” looks like a protective wall to keep Government from dinking with matters of faith - rather than some sort of quarantine to keep faith out of sight and out of mind by design.
 
Excellent analysis and my sentiments exactly! Our Senator kept LYING in his pressers saying “A few right wing radicals want to prevent women from getting birth control!”

Total and complete lie. Of course the MSM failed to question his rather ridiculous pontificating. Even the more ‘friendly’ news sources focus on contraception rather than the free exercise of religion which is the underlying and real issue.

Also appreciate reminding everyone that “separation of church and state” is NOT part of the Constitution, Bill of Rights etc. People have heard this so often they must think Moses brought it down from the mountain top

Lisa
Who knew that in January there was crisis, because millions of women working at Catholic agencies were unable to get birth control devises. Of course, in that case. :rolleyes: HHS was FORCED to intervene to prevent grievous harm from being done to those poor women.
 
Who knew that in January there was crisis, because millions of women working at Catholic agencies were unable to get birth control devises. Of course, in that case. :rolleyes: HHS was FORCED to intervene to prevent grievous harm from being done to those poor women.
Well yes as Sandra Fluke told us…it can cost them $3000 a year for birth control! They have to eat cat food in order to pay for it! Cats everywhere are starving!

Lisa
 
I strongly disagree with the ruling. I see it as waffling on a very important issue. The idea of the separation of church and state is as much to protect the Church from the State as vice versa.

Anytime the government gets in the business of telling churches what they can and cannot and must do smacks of persecution. What are we doing? Are we to create the Church of American and have the president as it’s head?

Whether you are religious or irreligious this ruling should give you pause.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top