With the decision expected this week and the spin / hyperbole in full swing I thought I'd take a poll on the very unpopular law....
OTB
OTB
Will the SCOUS Strike Down Any Part of Obamacare?
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
This is my bet as well.If they don't strike down the mandatory participation part of the law, I would be very much surprised. But it will be a split decision, either 5-4 or 6-3. The rest I think they might leave alone for now, but I am by no means sure of that.
The one thing I can't get my head around is why, with the amount of money. And lobbyists the insurance companies have they haven't supported this. This could be a lot of revenue to them. I guess it was a tough choice for the right wingers. Freedom or more money.
It's very simple. In the short term there's more money to be made keeping things the way they are now. In the long term, of course it will end up costing more. How often do people think in terms like that anymore?The one thing I can't get my head around is why, with the amount of money. And lobbyists the insurance companies have they haven't supported this. This could be a lot of revenue to them. I guess it was a tough choice for the right wingers. Freedom or more money.
The culture of corruption mainly sponsored by GOPers prefer things the way they are...broken....:eyebrows:The one thing I can't get my head around is why, with the amount of money. And lobbyists the insurance companies have they haven't supported this. This could be a lot of revenue to them. I guess it was a tough choice for the right wingers. Freedom or more money.
I will be very very surprise if all of it gets squashed and it will be almost a waste, as then begins the sides claiming victory, which it won't be. It will just be more complicated and more wood for the fire.
I will be absolutely shocked if the individual mandate is not held an overbroad use of the Commerce Clause, as for the rest my tea leaf reading is hazy, however, I believe they are more likely to pass muster than not.
We will know tomorrow. I think it is a toss up on the individual mandate.I will be absolutely shocked if the individual mandate is not held an overbroad use of the Commerce Clause, as for the rest my tea leaf reading is hazy, however, I believe they are more likely to pass muster than not.
The conservatives in the SC will do what the Plutocracy orders then to do!
That's what they were installed for....judicial activism at its worse....:eyebrows:
That's what they were installed for....judicial activism at its worse....:eyebrows:
That the Solicitor General of the U.S. didn't have a good response when several justices questioned him about if the Commerce Clause can go this far, where does it stop, does not bode well for it being held Constitutional.We will know tomorrow. I think it is a toss up on the individual mandate.
Isn't that one of those classic question where there is not proper answer, so saying nothing is the best course of action?That the Solicitor General of the U.S. didn't have a good response when several justices questioned him about if the Commerce Clause can go this far, where does it stop, does not bode well for it being held Constitutional.
Yeah, but Scalia has been cranky while Sonya and Kennedy have been upbeat this last week, and Roberts did lean strongly towards federal authority in the Arizona decisions.That the Solicitor General of the U.S. didn't have a good response when several justices questioned him about if the Commerce Clause can go this far, where does it stop, does not bode well for it being held Constitutional.
Not really when your case hinges on "no this isn't too far. Here is where too far is, and as the Court can see this legislation is on the 'good to go' side of the line." This is the closest we've been to a Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) since then.Isn't that one of those classic question where there is not proper answer, so saying nothing is the best course of action?
By the way at least some of the USSC tea leaf reading is that they may be looking (although that provision of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 was superseded years ago) for a case to use to overturn Wickard.
Which probably indicates that what happened with the Arizona law, and what we suspect will happen with "Obamacare" (namely that only part of the law will be struck down) are indeed the case.Yeah, but Scalia has been cranky while Sonya and Kennedy have been upbeat this last week, and Roberts did lean strongly towards federal authority in the Arizona decisions.
Scalia's argument that if the government could require mandatory participation in health care, it would be equivalent to requiring everyone to eat broccoli, is ludicrous. A person doesn't have to eat broccoli to survive. Eventually everyone will be involved in the health care system through emergency room treatment, unless they drop dead on the street or curl up on the sidewalk and die. There isn't any choice. The system is already effectively "mandatory". But to do it this way is enormously costly and can't be maintained. All, or very nearly all, citizens have to be enrolled for this to work or we will have one more burden on the economy spiraling out of control.
I expect Roberts will write the judgement, whatever it is. It will be a huge moment for his legacy.Which probably indicates that what happened with the Arizona law, and what we suspect will happen with "Obamacare" (namely that only part of the law will be struck down) are indeed the case.
