Supreme court unlikely to delay Obama healthcare ruling

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leegal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nec5 said:
Ah. I love the fascist language you employ that proves my point. “The law allows you”. It doesn’t allow anything. It forces at gunpoint as I already illustrated.
Click to expand...
The State has the power to levy taxes for virtually whatever reason it wants. I don’t consider paying taxes to be fascist.
Nec5 said:
“Not requiring you to purchase a service you aren’t already using or won’t use in the future”. That’s none of your concern or the concern of the government. I haven’t been to a doctor in many years; I plan to keep it that way.
Click to expand...
Its is absolutely my concern and the government’s concern because people who don’t have insurance are increasing risk in the market and driving up the cost of healthcare and insurance premiums.
 
Much point is missed methinks. The jewel of the presidency is to appoint Supreme Court Justices, yes? If the Obama Admininstration thinks it has the Majority of Judges in pocket, it will facilitate the Supreme Court’s hearing the case. If Obama Admin. is not confident of a victory vote in the Supreme Cout it will work to cause all manners of delay until Obama (or the next Democrat President) is elected and extant oppositional Supreme court Justices die or retire.

The point is this: The ‘**Law’ is relatively irrelevant. When(if) the democrats are successful in controlling the Supreme Court and they then pass the Obama Health Care (or as like the Democrats tried in the past - with ‘Hillary Care’) package - warts and all- the ruling that is pronounced to the Public will indeed sound 'reasonable’ -legally speaking. Challenges will certainly come. However, once legal momentum is flowing -reversing it (the Obama Health Care) is geometrically more difficult. Please do not ever expect rational or common sense from a Gov’t administration that has a vested (vested as in being supported by Planned Parenthood - no duh there,) proffit seeking and Social Agenda that is partnered with the evil adversary. I say evil, for let us call our enemy for what our enemy is - evil. Evil as in abortion. As in birth Control.

This is Judicial Activism of the highest level. It is the Socialist method of choice to inflict it’s will on the people. Simple to see really.

The discussions on this thread as to whether or not the HSS mandate and Obama care is* legal** is - relatively -Irrelevant.* It is the Political Will of the Democrats enabled by an ignorant, uninvolved majority population, buttressed by a Supreme Court ruling that will fundamentally prevail.

It will not be unlike the paralells in the past when we had to battle slavery.
It will be a terrific -uphill- battle, once the momentum is flowning against us.

Ergo that is why I posted earlier that the " ‘fix’ is in." One will know for sure the fix is in if the Obama admin. is actively working for the Supreme Court to hear the case now.
 
Nimzovik said:
Much point is missed methinks. The jewel of the presidency is to appoint Supreme Court Justices, yes? If the Obama Admininstration thinks it has the Majority of Judges in pocket, it will facilitate the Supreme Court’s hearing the case. If Obama Admin. is not confident of a victory vote in the Supreme Cout it will work to cause all manners of delay until Obama (or the next Democrat President) is elected and extant oppositional Supreme court Justices die or retire.

The point is this: The 'Law’ is relatively irrelevant. When(if) the democrats are successful in controlling the Supreme Court and they then pass the Obama Health Care (or as like the Democrats tried in the past - with ‘Hillary Care’) package - warts and all- the ruling that is pronounced to the Public will indeed sound 'reasonable’ -legally speaking. Challenges will certainly come.* However*, once legal momentum is flowing -reversing it (the Obama Health Care) is geometrically more difficult. Please do not ever expect rational or common sense from a Gov’t administration that has a vested (vested as in being supported by Planned Parenthood - no duh* there,) proffit seeking and Social Agenda that is partnered with the evil adversary*. I say evil, for let us call our enemy for what our enemy is - evil. Evil as in abortion. As in birth Control.

This is Judicial Activism of the highest level. It is the Socialist method of choice to inflict it’s will on the people. Simple to see really.

The discussions on this thread as to whether or not the HSS mandate and Obama care is* legal*** is - relatively -Irrelevant. It is the Political Will of the Democrats enabled by an ignorant, uninvolved majority population, buttressed by a Supreme Court ruling that will fundamentally prevail.

It will not be unlike the paralells in the past when we had to battle slavery.
It will be a terrific -uphill- battle, once the momentum is flowning against us.

Ergo that is why I posted earlier that the " ‘fix’ is in." One will know for sure the fix is in if the Obama admin. is actively working for the Supreme Court to hear the case now.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree. The Obama administration has a swelled head which causes it to do rash things that aren’t necessarily in their best interests. They don’t have a very good track record with this Supreme Court regardless of the number of Dem appointed Justices there are.
 
The unanswered question still remains:

If the government can force you to buy something, just where do its limits kick in?
 
sedonaman said:
The unanswered question still remains:

If the government can force you to buy something, just where do its limits kick in?
Click to expand...
What amuses me, is that the liberals really never stop to ponder what might happen when their side isn’t in power any more…If a liberal administration forces us to buy insurance, what might the next administration force THEM to buy? A Bible? A gun? A big gas-guzzling SUV? 😉 Or force them to do? Go to CHURCH? Work at a crisis pregnancy center? Have more BABIES?

(I know, a conservative administration is not likely to force us to do anything, but I have been very worried that what will be produced next will not be more conservative political leaders, but fascists. The type who will say, “Let me lead you, I know just what to do to solve these problems.”)
 
sedonaman said:
The unanswered question still remains:

If the government can force you to buy something, just where do its limits kick in?
Click to expand...
I think Justice Roberts answers that question nicely
Once you’re – once you’re in the interstate commerce and can
regulate it, pretty much all bets are off.
Click to expand...
 
sedonaman said:
The unanswered question still remains:

If the government can force you to buy something, just where do its limits kick in?
Click to expand...
None, and I think that Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy understand that consequence. Sotomeyor, Kagan, Ginsberg and Breyer either don’t care or actually welcome that sort of totalitarian control over the country.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
What amuses me, is that the liberals really never stop to ponder what might happen when their side isn’t in power any more…If a liberal administration forces us to buy insurance, what might the next administration force THEM to buy? A Bible? A gun? A big gas-guzzling SUV? 😉 Or force them to do? Go to CHURCH? Work at a crisis pregnancy center? Have more BABIES?

(I know, a conservative administration is not likely to force us to do anything, but I have been very worried that what will be produced next will not be more conservative political leaders, but fascists. The type who will say, “Let me lead you, I know just what to do to solve these problems.”)
Click to expand...
I would love it if this monstrosity is upheld, Obama looses in November, the Dems loose the Senate, and then pass a law that mandates that every household purchases a firearm and a set amount of ammunition. The liberals will literally explode. They’ll screech YOU CAN’T MAKE US BUY SOMETHING WE DON’T WANT TO BUY!!! at which point the Republicans can just calmly point out that the Democrats passed a law that does say the government can MAKE you engage in commerce.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
I would love it if this monstrosity is upheld, Obama looses in November, the Dems loose the Senate, and then pass a law that mandates that every household purchases a firearm and a set amount of ammunition. The liberals will literally explode. They’ll screech YOU CAN’T MAKE US BUY SOMETHING WE DON’T WANT TO BUY!!! at which point the Republicans can just calmly point out that the Democrats passed a law that does say the government can MAKE you engage in commerce.
Click to expand...
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
Click to expand...
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
Click to expand...
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Click to expand...
It has been done before.
 
The_Rock said:
It has been done before.
Click to expand...
Except that dealt with a legitimate function of the Federal Government which is national security. This case is being dealt with under the commerce clause. I think the Administration would get laughed out of court if they tried to claim purchasing medical insurance was necessary for national defense. Although, I could see them trying. They did try to say that churches didn’t have a right to decide who they could have as ministers. 😃
 
“[N]early all of the justices seemed troubled by how they should approach the task of deciding which parts of the law should stand or fall in a way that would least trample Congress’ lawmaking authority,” reported Richard Wolf and Brad Heath for USA Today. “Having to pick and choose among the law’s provisions would be a ‘more extreme exercise of judicial power’ than simply throwing out the entire law, said Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the court’s pivotal swing vote.”nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2012/03/supreme-court-ends-marathon-obamacare-oral-arguments/
Click to expand...
If Kennedy actually thinks this way, there is hope the whole thing may be scrapped.
 
Dawnia said:
Except that dealt with a legitimate function of the Federal Government which is national security. This case is being dealt with under the commerce clause. I think the Administration would get laughed out of court if they tried to claim purchasing medical insurance was necessary for national defense. Although, I could see them trying. They did try to say that churches didn’t have a right to decide who they could have as ministers. 😃
Click to expand...
I totally agree. I just had to chuckle at the thought of Hillary having to own a good musket or firelock!
 
Dawnia said:
Except that dealt with a legitimate function of the Federal Government which is national security. This case is being dealt with under the commerce clause.
Click to expand...
More specifically, the constitution provide explicitly in the enumerated powers of Art 1, Sec 8 for the federal government to arming the militia (“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…”), not just national security in the abstract.
 
I thought with the Justices having a preliminary vote today, even though they can change their minds, that we would find out, but apparently the result is only kept within the court and a preliminary vote has not been leaked before.
 
ObamaCare/ Supreme Court updates

“If one of the most unpopular aspects of the legislation gets tossed out and many of the more popular provisions remain intact, it might suddenly become much easier for the president to score points by talking about” - Ross Douthat

“The defeat of ObamaCare would also free up Romney from the burden of trying to prove why his bill was not the spiritual father of Obama’s. That would help him with the GOP base as well as give him space to concentrate on his economic expertise and to flay the president’s record on employment.” - Jonathan Tobin for Commentary

Most experts think it’ll be a GOP win if Court strikes down ObamaCare - Hotline

Nate Silver: Supreme Court May Be Most Conservative in Modern History
 
The_Rock said:
I totally agree. I just had to chuckle at the thought of Hillary having to own a good musket or firelock!
Click to expand...
Did you know that Hillary Rodham was a Goldwater conservative in her early years and was president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College?
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
I would love it if this monstrosity is upheld, Obama looses in November, the Dems loose the Senate, and then pass a law that mandates that every household purchases a firearm and a set amount of ammunition. The liberals will literally explode. They’ll screech YOU CAN’T MAKE US BUY SOMETHING WE DON’T WANT TO BUY!!! at which point the Republicans can just calmly point out that the Democrats passed a law that does say the government can MAKE you engage in commerce.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the charge of hypocrisy doesn’t seem to work on liberals.

Thanks to the others for their kind words on my post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top