Affordable Care Act/Obama-care Supreme Court ruling...

[justndav]

I have some friends who are deeply political like myself, and today we discussed what we think this decision will be tomorrow. One of the friends offered an interesting possibility that the court would just announce that they are withholding the full opinion until after this Fall's election so as not to have the decision influence the election and arguments on both sides. Such that Republicans can continue to campaign on saying the law is unconstitutional and the such, while Democrats can campaign on the need to have "democrats in congress to pass a constitutionally legal law" etc etc. I don't see the Supreme Court just announcing they are delaying their ruling until after the election, but I suppose anything is possible.

After looking back at things and seeing Democrats going into panic mode, IE fundraising on the law and this decision, I think those in the know probably have been tipped off that the court is ruling against the law.

Personally, I too, think they are going to rule most of the law unconstitutional which is a shame because it was a good premise and idea but maybe it will spur on universal single payer coverage again... but how close we will come to it like we did in 2010 again?

 

[chrisrobin]

,
I heard Romney on my radio tonight. While speaking, he sounded as if he was shooting his load while speculating about the defeat of "Obamacare" AKA "Romneycare".

 

[justndav]

I know there has been talk about how quiet this decision has been and how no leaks have gotten out... but I am really led to believe that there are people in the know that are aware of what the decision is going to be. Press Secretary Carney saying that Obama didn't have any planned statements about the decision I think could be read as "see its legal, nothing to say" or "I'm going to sulk with my tail between my legs for a few days while we regroup" so I find it hard to believe people high up don't know what the decision is going to be... I believe they know and with democrats being in this panic mode sending out these fund raising alerts using the Supreme Court and the ruling tells me they know the decision is going to be the law is unconstitutional or a majority of the law is going to be tossed... and you can see things leaning that way with the way Anthony Kennedy was constructing his comments and questions during the arguments.

 

[Kulindahr]

If the mandate goes, the expansion of Medicaid has to go, or it's an undue burden on the states -- in fact, a catch-22, where they're screwed no matter what they do. In fact I think the only thing that could still stand is the requirement of carrying kids on their parents' policies for a full twenty-five years.

 

[JB3]

If the mandate goes, the expansion of Medicaid has to go, or it's an undue burden on the states -- in fact, a catch-22, where they're screwed no matter what they do. In fact I think the only thing that could still stand is the requirement of carrying kids on their parents' policies for a full twenty-five years.

The justices asked enough about severability that they may decide that no court can unwind all of the inter-dependent pieces of the law, and it has to be completely struck down. Based on some of their comments as well, it does not seem like they would be comfortable with courts picking and choosing the pieces that have to go that are based around the mandate.

 

[evanrick]

Establishment bias against reform and progress will find any excuse to legislate from the bench.

If I were Obama I would say, to hell with the court, because in the end Obama would win a fight with the court. It would crate a lot of drama in political circles, but when the dust clears it would become pretty apparent that is a political decision. Passing Obamacare was a necessity.

 

[Benvolio]

Before the argument and later, I predicted what the court will do in two threads entitled "Obama care in the Supreme Court" and "What the Supreme Court will do". Members may wish to go back and review what they said after we hear the decision. Notice the liberals are not at all concerned with what the Constitution says. They think, we need the act and so if the Judges throw it out they are wrong, and political.

 

[rareboy]

How fucked up this all is.

 

[palemale]

I still believe that Roberts and Kennedy are not as nuts as Scalia and, in the final analysis, will realize that it would be too great an upheaval on the public and too great a threat to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act when there is no legal or constitutional basis to do so. They know their legacy will be as partisan hacks that disgraced the Supreme Court. I predict the Supreme Court will uphold the law 6-3, Alito, Scalia and Thomas in dissent. Justice Roberts will write the decision.

 

[Benvolio]

I still believe that Roberts and Kennedy are not as nuts as Scalia and, in the final analysis, will realize that it would be too great an upheaval on the public and too great a threat to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act when there is no legal or constitutional basis to do so. They know their legacy will be as partisan hacks that disgraced the Supreme Court. I predict the Supreme Court will uphold the law 6-3, Alito, Scalia and Thomas in dissent. Justice Roberts will write the decision.

Typical liberal. No discussion of the actual Constitution. Brush is aside in favor of ad hominem arguments and what the liberals want.

Failing to buy insurance is not interstate commerce, so as to be regulated by Congress. Period.

 

[palemale]

Typical liberal. No discussion of the actual Constitution. Brush is aside in favor of ad hominem arguments and what the liberals want.

Failing to buy insurance is not interstate commerce, so as to be regulated by Congress. Period.

Are you suggesting that Congress lacks the power to regulate the health care and health insurance industry because there is no interstate commerce in health care? Of course you aren't, no one argues that. Therefore, since we can all agree that Congress has the power to regulate health care and health insurance, isn't the real question whether that part of the statute that enacted the individual mandate is constitutionally suspect? If Congress has the power to regulate the health insurance industry, isn't that the end of the story for the whole statute? The individual mandate is simply one of the ways Congress chose to regulate the health insurance industry.

 

[Benvolio]

But someone not buying insurance is not part of the health care industry. He is choosing not to be part of that activity.
What the liberals will say is this. Past cases have held that Congress can regulate what affects interstate commerce. Someone not buying insurance affects interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated. But the "affects" argument was already stretching the Constitution beyond its intent. It not buying affects commerce, what in the world does not? The liberal judges will say that but I believe they will be a minority. They will also say that eventually everyone will want insurance in commerce..

If the Court goes that far,Congress would have total power to do anything it wants. You don't eat broccoli? You are affecting commerce. From now on you will buy it every week.
The Court cannot in good faith stretch the Constitution this far, and do not believe that they will.

 

[palemale]

But someone not buying insurance is not part of the health care industry. He is choosing not to be part of that activity.
What the liberals will say is this. Past cases have held that Congress can regulate what affects interstate commerce. Someone not buying insurance affects interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated. But the "affects" argument was already stretching the Constitution beyond its intent. It not buying affects commerce, what in the world does not? The liberal judges will say that but I believe they will be a minority. They will also say that eventually everyone will want insurance in commerce..

If the Court goes that far,Congress would have total power to do anything it wants. You don't eat broccoli? You are affecting commerce. From now on you will buy it every week.
The Court cannot in good faith stretch the Constitution this far, and do not believe that they will.

The Founding Fathers would go that far:

In 1790, a Congress including 20 Founders passed a law requiring that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. Washington signed it into law.
In 1792, another law signed by Washington required that all able-bodied men buy a firearm. (So much for the argument that Congress can’t force us to participate in commerce.)
And in 1798, a Congress with five framers passed a law requiring that all seamen buy hospital insurance for themselves. Adams signed this legislation.

Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution: Harvard law professor Einer Elhauge shows how the Founding Fathers supported mandates. - Slate Magazine

 

[White Eagle]

This just out, I haven't read it yet


Supreme Court upholds health care law - NBC Politics

Supreme Court upholds Obama's health care law

In a dramatic victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court upheld the 2010 health care law Thursday, preserving Obama’s landmark legislative achievement.

 

[White Eagle]

ABC has more on it. Let's see what they say.
;

The Mandate Can Stay, Supreme Court Says in Health Care Ruling - ABC News

The Mandate Can Stay, Supreme Court Says in Health Care Ruling


By MATT NEGRIN (@MattNegrin) AND ARIANE DE VOGUE (@Arianedevogue)
June 28, 2012

The so-called individual mandate to buy health insurance, the key part of President Obama's signature health care law, has survived, the Supreme Court ruled this morning.

The court ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional, but it can stay as part of Congress's power under a taxing clause. The court said that the government will be allowed to tax people for not having health insurance.

"The Affordable care act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," the court said in the ruling.

 

[palemale]

Not to toot my horn, but I was right, the SCOTUS upheld the ACA. I was wrong, however, in believing that Justice Kennedy would not join the insane wing of the Court. That is disappointing. I look forward to reading the dissent that Kennedy wrote. Apparently, the crazies would find the entire ACA unconstitutional.

 

[justdra]

Who is CJ Roberts in all of this? I thought everyone in the court were equal, yet I hear his name and what he thinks more than anyone.

 

[Benvolio]

Bizarre, because Congress and Obama both said it is not a tax. I said in the thread, "Obama care in the Supreme Court" that if it was considered a tax it was invalid as a direct tax, not apportioned pursuant to the Census, but I said it could be cast as an Income tax:"ALAS, they will point out to the silly Dems that all they need to do is frame the penalty as an income tax to virtually immunize it from judicial scrutiny. Thank God the Democrats have no Constitutional lawyers on their side. (Democrats think the courts will do whatever the party wants, so they have few lawyers who understand, or want to bother with he actual Constitution.)"

Here is Obama saying it is not a tax:http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/

 

[palbert]

I still believe that Roberts and Kennedy are not as nuts as Scalia and, in the final analysis, will realize that it would be too great an upheaval on the public and too great a threat to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act when there is no legal or constitutional basis to do so. They know their legacy will be as partisan hacks that disgraced the Supreme Court. I predict the Supreme Court will uphold the law 6-3, Alito, Scalia and Thomas in dissent. Justice Roberts will write the decision.

Prescience personified. One of the more analytic thinkers in this Forum. Kudos.

 

[prudyprudestein]

I'm satisfied that the SCOTUS ruled that most of the Healthcare act constitutional. The smart move for each individual is to focus on prevention, vaccination, proper diet and exercise with regular checkups with our health care professional. If everyone is covered with health care, then the cost overall would be kept in check. I feel too many times some Americans are to much in it for themselves. EVeryone pays for the cost of healthcare, it depends when and how we pay for it. Even those who have insurance covered by an employer as a benefit pay deductibles or co-pays to keep the overall cost down for the employer. Gays & Lesbians who cover their partners on their health plans are taxed on the cost of the plan. Everyone should pay to support social programs that benefit all citizens--healthcare, education, police, fire, roads, et cetera. Some would view that as socialism, I see it as providing for the common good paid for by taxes that benefit us all.