Supreme court unlikely to delay Obama healthcare ruling

[He_Man]

I thought this hearing was to the constitutionality of the mandate only?

If so, why is it any concern of the Supreme Court as to the efficacy of the rest of the law? That is not their problem, or concern. Their job should be to render a decision on whether the mandate is constitutional.

If it is, the law stands as intended.

If it is not, simply strike the mandate. The fact that it neuters the bill, or drives up cost is a problem for lawmakers or those the bill applies to.

The USSCs job to not to judge whether or not they like the bill; their job is to judge whether or not it is legal under the Constitution, and decide to than end.

I just worry that on the liberal judge’s side, their purveying notion will be"without the mandate, (even though we don’t like it from a legal standpoint), the bill becomes useless, so the mandate has to stay."

Wrong thinking, IMO. Judge the constitutionality of the mandate in and of itself, and let the chips fall where they may. What happens after the decision is made is NOT the court’s problem.

 

[He_Man]

Does Romneycare have an individual mandate?

Not at a federal level, not. The commerce clause in question is being addressed for the US constitution, not at a state level. Separate discussion from what this one addresses.

The arguments would depend on the state consitutions in questions, on a case by case basis.

 

[Charlotte408]

Not at a federal level, of course not. The commerce clause in question is being addressed for the US constitution, not at a state level. Separate discussion.

Commerce clause? I just read all kinds of posts saying that they are questioning the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

The poster I addressed said that the individual mandate was a republican, or conservative idea. I’m not sure that isn’t correct, if Romney did in fact - have the idea first.

 

[He_Man]

Commerce clause? I just read all kinds of posts saying that they are questioning the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

The poster I addressed said that the individual mandate was a republican, or conservative idea. I’m not sure that isn’t wrong, if Romney did in fact - have the idea first.

The Obama admin was arguing the commerce clause gave them the right to mandate the insurance. It doesn’t.

That poster made the mistake of confusing Romney with a conservative. Happens all the time

I don’t know whose idea it was, but the notion that somehow we conservatives are going to change our tune because the mandate was a conservative notion is silly. Issues like this should binary issues. 1 or 0. Whose idea it was is irrelevant to the fact that it is either legal, or not.

 

[scipio337]

I thought this hearing was to the constitutionality of the mandate only?

If so, why is it any concern of the Supreme Court as to the efficacy of the rest of the law? That is not their problem, or concern. Their job should be to render a decision on whether the mandate is constitutional.

If it is, the law stands as intended.

If it is not, simply strike the mandate. The fact that it neuters the bill, or drives up cost is a problem for lawmakers or those the bill applies to.

The USSCs job to not to judge whether or not they like the bill; their job is to judge whether or not it is legal under the Constitution, and decide to than end.

I just worry that on the liberal judge’s side, their purveying notion will be"without the mandate, (even though we don’t like it from a legal standpoint), the bill becomes useless, so the mandate has to stay."

Wrong thinking, IMO. Judge the constitutionality of the mandate in and of itself, and let the chips fall where they may. What happens after the decision is made is NOT the court’s problem.

Scotus is also determining “severability” of the mandate to the rest of the law.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability

 

[He_Man]

Scotus is also determining “severability” of the mandate to the rest of the law.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability

That makes sense, but I fear that the notion that the mandate is not severable from the rest of the bill (why it may be true), will lead some to give greater weight to the “merits” of the rest of the bill versus the illegality of the mandate, and since they cannot be severed, leave the entire thing in place.

Basically, if they cannot be severed, and the manadate is believed to be unconstitional, the bill should be thrown out in whole. I am not convinced Kagan, SS, Bryer, or RBG would do that, legal or not.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Issues like this should binary issues. 1 or 0. Whose idea it was is irrelevant to the fact that it is either legal, or not.

I’m going to remember that phrase.

 

[scipio337]

That makes sense, but I fear that the notion that the mandate is not severable from the rest of the bill (why it may be true), will lead some to give greater weight to the “merits” of the rest of the bill versus the illegality of the mandate, and since they cannot be severed, leave the entire thing in place.

Basically, if they cannot be severed, and the manadate is believed to be unconstitional, the bill should be thrown out in whole. I am not convinced Kagan, SS, Bryer, or RBG would do that, legal or not.

I may be counting my chickens here, but I believe the mandate being unConstitutional is almost a lock.

What remains to be seen is if it is severable from the rest of the bill. If the mandate is deemed unConstitutional, at least the mandate part will be stricken, then there are two options:

1. Law is considered “severable”, and ACA (Obamacare) stands (sans mandate)
2. Law is considered “inseverable”, and ALL of ACA is thrown out. (because of one portion being unConstitutional)

Recent article that goes over some of the questions/comments regarding severability. Kagan/Ginsberg leaning towards “severable” Scalia, possibly Kennedy leaning towards “inseverable”.

latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story

 

[SamH]

I may be counting my chickens here, but I believe the mandate being unConstitutional is almost a lock.

What remains to be seen is if it is severable from the rest of the bill. If the mandate is deemed unConstitutional, at least the mandate part will be stricken, then there are two options:

1. Law is considered “severable”, and ACA (Obamacare) stands (sans mandate)
2. Law is considered “inseverable”, and ALL of ACA is thrown out. (because of one portion being unConstitutional)

Recent article that goes over some of the questions/comments regarding severability. Kagan/Ginsberg leaning towards “severable” Scalia, possibly Kennedy leaning towards “inseverable”.

latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story

Given some of the statements made by the court I don’t think they are going to parse out the bill and say which parts are constitutional and which parts are not. Remember these justices are people with egos too. I seriously doubt they are going “lower” themselves to judicial editors to “clean up” a bill that congress passed in the dead of night and the president signed without a single person reading it. Given the fact that they know other parts are going to be litigated in the future (the contraceptive mandates) I doubt they have much interest in saving those parts for now just so they can deal with them later. I believe the word “reckless” is going to be used in their opinion no matter what they decide.

I give it 50/50 that the law survives this challenge. If it doesn’t survive this challenge the entire bill goes in the scrap heap of history.

 

[sedonaman]

I am not sure where, in this language, we cede or authorize power to anyone:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



All it states is We the people of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the united states of America. All that stuff in the middle are subordinate clauses that explain the reasons why the Constitution was established. It doesn’t grant power to anyone or any entity.

I mean, why is it that legislators never quote the “Blessings of Liberty” clause when they claim they have the power to do stuff?

Well, how do you suppose that, “[N]o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba” got morphed into Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ? Simple. By words multiplied for that purpose.

 

[stewstew03]

Its no different than the States requiring drivers to purchase auto insurance.

You do understand the difference between State and Federal power, correct? There is no federal law requiring individuals to purchase auto insurance (except for commercial purposes).

 

[sedonaman]

…I give it 50/50 that the law survives this challenge. If it doesn’t survive this challenge the entire bill goes in the scrap heap of history.

If it survives, it will go down as another colossal catastrophe, like Dred Scott v. Stanford, Plessy v. Furgusson, and Roe v. Wade. There won’t be enough judges and lawyers to handle all the lawsuits that will grow out of it.

 

[SamH]

You do understand the difference between State and Federal power, correct? There is no federal law requiring individuals to purchase auto insurance (except for commercial purposes).

And in that case it’s for interstate commerce. That’s why farmers can own a semi to haul grain from the field to the local elevator and not have a DOT registration. But if they want to haul from elevator to elevator they have to comply with federal DOT regulations and have IFTA, drug testing, heavy vehicle tax and everything else.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

If it survives, it will go down as another colossal catastrophe, like Dred Scott v. Stanford, Plessy v. Furgusson, and Roe v. Wade. There won’t be enough judges and lawyers to handle all the lawsuits that will grow out of it.

I won’t complain if it becomes a form of Full Employment for Attorneys Law.

 

[Charlotte408]

I’m going to remember that phrase.

Me too

Just to put the info out there, a reference is being made to the American Heritage Foundation, something from 20 years ago:

articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-28/politics/31248569_1_individual-mandate-health-care-american-health

But I also quickly found this to dispute it:

heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/02/dont-blame-heritage-for-obamacare-mandate

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I thought this hearing was to the constitutionality of the mandate only?

If so, why is it any concern of the Supreme Court as to the efficacy of the rest of the law? That is not their problem, or concern. Their job should be to render a decision on whether the mandate is constitutional.

If it is, the law stands as intended.

If it is not, simply strike the mandate. The fact that it neuters the bill, or drives up cost is a problem for lawmakers or those the bill applies to.

The USSCs job to not to judge whether or not they like the bill; their job is to judge whether or not it is legal under the Constitution, and decide to than end.

I just worry that on the liberal judge’s side, their purveying notion will be"without the mandate, (even though we don’t like it from a legal standpoint), the bill becomes useless, so the mandate has to stay."

Wrong thinking, IMO. Judge the constitutionality of the mandate in and of itself, and let the chips fall where they may. What happens after the decision is made is NOT the court’s problem.

Actually, there were three separate hearings.

The first was whether or not the SC could rule on it in the first place. First, they had to determine if the “penalty” was a tax. If the penalty is deemed a tax, then SC cannot rule on it until the first person is required to pay the penalty/tax, and only the parties that are materially affected will be allowed to bring suit.

Second was the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

Third was the 10th amendment implications tot he expansion of Medicare.

 

[Dawnia]

Actually, there were three separate hearings.

The first was whether or not the SC could rule on it in the first place. First, they had to determine if the “penalty” was a tax. If the penalty is deemed a tax, then SC cannot rule on it until the first person is required to pay the penalty/tax, and only the parties that are materially affected will be allowed to bring suit.

Second was the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

Third was the 10th amendment implications tot he expansion of Medicare.

There were actually 4 separate hearings…you forgot the severability portion.

11-398-Monday. Department of Health and Human Servs. v. Florida	03/26/12
               re: timing of suite
11-398-Tuesday. Department of Health and Human Servs. v. Florida	03/27/12
               re: individual mandate
11-393. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius	03/28/12
              re: severability
11-400. Florida v. Department of Health and Human Servs.	                03/28/12
              re: Medicare expansion

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

There were actually 4 separate hearings…you forgot the severability portion.

Well, I think that severability was discussed in the hearing on the mandate. If I am not mistaken, they talked about the Constitutionality of the mandate and the standing of the entire law if the mandate is severed out.

 

[Dawnia]

Well, I think that severability was discussed in the hearing on the mandate. If I am not mistaken, they talked about the Constitutionality of the mandate and the standing of the entire law if the mandate is severed out.

It was a completely separate issue heard on Thursday morning.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

It was a completely separate issue heard on Thursday morning.

Okay, thanks. I didn’t know.