3rdnlng Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/31/5961248-florida-judge-rules-health-care-law-unconstitutional- As an aside, Frenkle won't have a free ride to get his lobotomy reversed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Next stop for HCR: the SCOTUS. Next stop after that? The morgue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 "...the mere status of being without health insurance, in and of itself, has absolutely no impact whatsoever on interstate commerce (not "slight," "trivial," or "indirect," but no impact whatsoever) -- at least not any more so than the status of being without any particular good or service." Did this judge get his law degree at Bob Jones University or Oral Roberts? This is so idiotic and blantently ridiculous. The cartoon court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Indeed, I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that "if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.” See Interview on CNN’s American Morning, Feb. 5, 2008, transcript available at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/05/ltm.02.html. In fact, he pointed to the similar individual mandate in Massachusetts --- which was imposed under the state’s police power, a power the federal government does not have --- and opined that the mandate there left some residents “worse off” than they had been before. See Christopher Lee, Simple Question Defines Complex Health Debate, Washington Post, Feb. 24, 2008, at A10 (quoting Senator Obama as saying: "In some cases, there are people [in Massachusetts] who are paying fines and still can't afford [health insurance], so now they're worse off than they were . . . They don't have health insurance, and they're paying a fine . . .”). So Obama was against it before he was for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Beautiful. The ENTIRE bill is declared unconstitutional, because of one section - the health insurance mandate - and the little omission of a standard separation clause in a 2500-page bill. Which Congress had to pass to find out they omitted it. "We have to pass it to find out what's in it," indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It will be a 5-4 Supreme court decision, with Kennedy ultimately being the "decider" on the fate of Obamacare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It will be a 5-4 Supreme court decision, with Kennedy ultimately being the "decider" on the fate of Obamacare. How do you think Alito will vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Beautiful. The ENTIRE bill is declared unconstitutional, because of one section - the health insurance mandate - and the little omission of a standard separation clause in a 2500-page bill. Which Congress had to pass to find out they omitted it. "We have to pass it to find out what's in it," indeed. The severability clause was in the original bill, but was intentionally removed for the final bill. I'm sure those who voted for it knew it was removed, realizing that without the mandate, their vision of HCR falls apart (even more than it already would, which they didn't realize). What they didn't realize, or more precisely what they were too haughty to consider, is that there would be serious legal challenges to the personal mandate. It will be a 5-4 Supreme court decision, with Kennedy ultimately being the "decider" on the fate of Obamacare. I don't think it will be even that close. Looking at the 9-0 ANI over NFL ruling, I doubt the SCOTUS wants to set the precedent of allowing the federal gubment to force people to buy things, much less private products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Next stop for HCR: the SCOTUS. Next stop after that? The morgue. Haven't the democrats stacked the Supreme Court with co conspirator lefties? Who was that guy they put in a few months ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I don't think it will be even that close. Looking at the 9-0 ANI over NFL ruling, I doubt the SCOTUS wants to set the precedent of allowing the federal gubment to force people to buy things, much less private products. On a politically hot issue like health care? I'll bet on a straight party line ruling (which is sad), which I think is currently 5-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 Haven't the democrats stacked the Supreme Court with co conspirator lefties? Who was that guy they put in a few months ago? Elvis Cajun was its name, and no they replaced libs with ultra libs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 On a politically hot issue like health care? I'll bet on a straight party line ruling (which is sad), which I think is currently 5-4. It's probably more 4.51 - 4.49 on a hot issue like this. Can't predict Kennedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It's probably more 4.51 - 4.49 on a hot issue like this. Can't predict Kennedy. Sure you can...he'll get smashed, cheat on his wife, then take off to Hyannis... Oops, sorry, wrong Kennedy clan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) I dont know, but Vincent's explanation was pretty powerful and it would be hard for a quasi conservative judge to vote against his ruling. Where do the limits of the powers of Congress stop? If they can mandate you to buy health insurance from a private entity simply because Congress believes it is in your best interest, then where do you draw the line? It's a simple yet complex case of opening the pandora's box. Even though Alito is a free commerce sort of guy, he'll fall in line with the rest of the conservatives, Kennedy will be the one who decides. I really don't know how he'll judge, if I had to make a wager, I'd say he'd also rule that it was an overreach from the government. Edited February 1, 2011 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) On a politically hot issue like health care? I'll bet on a straight party line ruling (which is sad), which I think is currently 5-4. I'm hoping that the judges look beyond just the health care implications to other future infringements on personal freedom the government might try to impose, under the guise of "regulating interstate commerce," which could then be applied to anything. But I could live with just a 5-4 ruling against it. Edited February 1, 2011 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 If the HC bill stands in the Supreme Court, specifically the Individual Mandate, would that also make the following proposed Individual Mandate in South Dakota Constitutional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 If the HC bill stands in the Supreme Court, specifically the Individual Mandate, would that also make the following proposed Individual Mandate in South Dakota Constitutional? I heard Mitt Romney talking about the HC ruling and how it applied to the Mass. HC law. He said that state rights are different from the federal governments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I heard Mitt Romney talking about the HC ruling and how it applied to the Mass. HC law. He said that state rights are different from the federal governments. I don't like it...but I can't think of any reason he's wrong, frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Romney is correct. States can implement a mandate, like Mass did. The federal gubment however cannot force a mandate on the states. As per the constitution. But Mass model proves that a mandate won't lower health care costs. Mass had the highest premiums before, and still has the highest premiums. When Romney was asked if he would consider it a failure because their premiums were still the highest, all he could say was "no [it's not a failure], because they were already the highest." And while we're on the subject, I recently read that the Mass mandate actually did get more people to subscribe than prior to it. But again, premiums didn't go down and neither did health care costs, and I still can see more people opting-out nationally than what happened in Mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Romney is correct. States can implement a mandate, like Mass did. The federal gubment however cannot force a mandate on the states. As per the constitution. More accurately, there's no federal prohibitation against the states implementing a mandate. Doesn't mean the states can (their own individual constitutions and laws have to allow it), just means the feds can't stop them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts