Supreme court unlikely to delay Obama healthcare ruling

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leegal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott_Lafrance said:
They don’t, but they are the two that were primarily responsible for getting it passed. If the court wants to know what the “intent” of the law was, what the consequences of parts of it being overturned are, why not ask the two individuals who are directly responsible for the content of it? I mean, they are just a few blocks away.
Click to expand...
The Supremes don’t call witnesses. It is an appeals court. The court relies on the briefs provided by both sides of the issue.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
The Supremes don’t call witnesses. It is an appeals court. The court relies on the briefs provided by both sides of the issue.
Click to expand...
You know what I mean Rich. I know that they don’t admit “witness testimony”, but SC of the past have referred to the Federalist Papers and support documents that surround a piece of legislation so they could derive the intent of the lawmakers when judging the merits of a law. My point is that they don’t have to infer or derive the intent of the lawmakers. They are at work right down the street.
 
Obama was given power to create the mandate by the section of the bill that is in question. So, yes. It would say that the mandate is not constitutional.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
You know what I mean Rich. I know that they don’t admit “witness testimony”, but SC of the past have referred to the Federalist Papers and support documents that surround a piece of legislation so they could derive the intent of the lawmakers when judging the merits of a law. My point is that they don’t have to infer or derive the intent of the lawmakers. They are at work right down the street.
Click to expand...
Well, sure. They could do so at the cost of changing procedures and making the court partially a court of original jurisdiction. Ordinarily, the Supremes are such only per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. Won’t happen.
 
Avik Roy’s symposium for NRO tomorrow:
Anything can still happen. As I wrote the other day, it would be premature for conservatives to celebrate. But I’ve gone from thinking that there was nearly zero chance that the Court would strike down the whole law to thinking it could be close to a 50/50 proposition. The Court clearly understands that, if they strike down the mandate and a few related provisions, they could be creating a huge mess that will severely disrupt the American health-care system.
Click to expand...
I was also struck, as everyone else has been, by how receptive Kennedy seemed to the argument that the mandate is unconstitutional. Conservatives are justifiably optimistic about what could happen in June.
Click to expand...
I would simply say that we need to be prepared for all outcomes. If the Court upholds the law, we need to work that much harder on repeal. If the Court only repeals the mandate and possibly a few closely-related provisions, we need to begin explaining to people how problematic the rest of the law still is. And if the law is thrown out entirely, we need to do the hard work of articulating our own free-market solutions to the many problems our system faces, so that no one will ever again think that we need a law like Obamacare.
Click to expand...
 
Caught on camera: SEIU activists discuss $20 payment for Obamacare protest [VIDEO]
Video footage obtained by The Daily Caller appears to show a group of women dressed in purple Service Employees International Union-branded clothing, discussing how much they were paid to attend a March 27 protest outside the Supreme Court. The video first appeared online Wednesday.
Click to expand...
dailycaller.com/2012/03/28/caught-on-camera-seiu-activists-discuss-20-payment-for-obamacare-protest-video/#ixzz1qRw7xpMW
 
_Abyssinia said:
Caught on camera: SEIU activists discuss $20 payment for Obamacare protest [VIDEO]

dailycaller.com/2012/03/28/caught-on-camera-seiu-activists-discuss-20-payment-for-obamacare-protest-video/#ixzz1qRw7xpMW
Click to expand...
Apparently SEUI is a “Protester for hire” organization. Just tell them where you need them, what sign you want them to hold, and what you want them to yell, and how much you’ll pay and you have an “on demand angry mob”. Well, this only works for liberal causes.
 
Methinks the Court will pass the mandate. It would not have been brought up to the Supreme Court level at this time if the fix was not in.
 
It isnt looking good for Obamacare. Most of the news articles I’ve seen today have seemed to think the whole thing is going down.
America is awesome. The checks and balance’s thing was genius!
 
Moore11 said:
If the supreme court strikes down in whole or part the healthcare case before it, will that nullify or perhaps soften the HHS mandate?
Click to expand...
If the individual mandate goes, the rest can stay in place, but it becomes a funding problem. In some respects, I hope that happens and the rest of the stuff stays in place. Then the health insurance industry will get what they deserve for striking a devil’s bargain. Here’s the bargain they struck:
  1. Health insurance companies agree to cover people on their parents’ plan longer.
  2. Health insurance companies agree to cover those with pre-existing conditions.
  3. Health insurance companies agree to not deny anyone coverage.
This dramatically raises their costs. Why did they do it? The individual mandate:

Because Obamacare puts a gun to every citizen’s head and requires them to buy the health insurance companies’ product or be punished. And yes, it’s a gun to the head because if you don’t pay the penalty, Johnny Law comes a knockin’ when he’s not preying on motorists. And the health insurance industry gets millions of new customers guaranteed without any need for advertising costs.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate, the underlined part goes away, but points 1-3 remain. The health insurance companies get hosed by those costs as well they should for endorsing a bill that robs man of his god given liberty.

Of course, then they likely get into trouble by raising premiums or go out of business. Then the geniuses in our government will try something else. One way or the other, the rotten progressives will win because the other side is spiritually and morally impotent (i.e. Romney/Bush and the Republicans), but it might be fun to watch evil squirm a bit under it own shenanigans.
 
Nec5 said:
This dramatically raises their costs. Why did they do it? The individual mandate:

Because Obamacare puts a gun to every citizen’s head and requires them to buy the health insurance companies’ product or be punished. And yes, it’s a gun to the head because if you don’t pay the penalty, Johnny Law comes a knockin’ when he’s not preying on motorists. And the health insurance industry gets millions of new customers guaranteed without any need for advertising costs.
Click to expand...
That is an unfair and inaccurate characterization of the law. The law allows you to pay an additional percentage in income taxes OR purchase health insurance. One of the points made in the discourse before the Supreme Court is that the government is not requiring you to purchase a service (healthcare) you aren’t already using or won’t use in the future ; merely regulating how you pay for it. Either you get insurance or you pay taxes so that the government will pay for you.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Apparently SEUI is a “Protester for hire” organization. Just tell them where you need them, what sign you want them to hold, and what you want them to yell, and how much you’ll pay and you have an “on demand angry mob”. Well, this only works for liberal causes.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere that in the 19th century, paying people to vote a certain way was common. That probably doesn’t happen any more … well, not much, anyway. 😉
 
HHS Mandate and Severability
And on Day 3 of the highest-profile Supreme Court argument in a generation, the justices were back sparring with each other: This time, the issue was whether if the individual mandate portion of the law is struck down, the rest of the law has to come with it.
Click to expand...
According to the WSJ, the split seems likely to fall on familiar lines, with the four liberal justices supporting the notion of “severability,” and the four conservative justices voicing skepticism.
Click to expand...
One the one side stood Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court’s senior liberal, who said that if the justices must choose between “a wrecking operation and a salvage job, a more conservative approach would be a salvage job.”
Click to expand...
On the other stood Justice Antonin Scalia, who said it would be “totally unrealistic” to expect the Supreme Court to go through the hundreds of pages of the law and figure out which parts were connected with the insurance mandate.
Click to expand...
So the question becomes: whither Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts, long viewed as the two possible swing votes in the case.
Click to expand...
Chief Justice John Roberts asked several questions that appeared to further the challengers’ case. The chief justice said many provisions in the law were included as sweeteners to help enact the less-popular individual mandate. Without those provisions, Congress “would not have been able to cobble together the votes to get it approved,” Chief Justice Roberts said.
Click to expand...
However, he also conceded that many of the law’s provisions have nothing to do with the insurance mandate, showing some sympathy for the government’s argument.
Click to expand...
Justice Kennedy, said it might be hard to dismantle a complex law with hundreds of provisions and figure out in minute detail which should survive. Justice Kennedy questioned whether the court was competent to do so. He told government lawyer sEdwin Kneedler that it was “odd” to suggest the court was competent to invalidate some parts but not others.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case by the end of June.
Click to expand...
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Apparently SEUI is a “Protester for hire” organization. Just tell them where you need them, what sign you want them to hold, and what you want them to yell, and how much you’ll pay and you have an “on demand angry mob”. Well, this only works for liberal causes.
Click to expand...
Can you imagine if anti ObamaCare groups had been found to be paying people to come and protest against it, the mainstream media would not stop going on about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top