Will the SCOUS Strike Down Any Part of Obamacare?
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
No. The entitlements will be reduced over time. That is what the CBO agreed at the time. The effect will not be immediate but over time. All entitlements must be looked at and all revenue sources. Obama has put everything on the table. The GOP has taken revenue ie taxes and defense off. You know what they say about learning from history. The GOP has examined history and either not learned anything or learned the wrong lesson.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf Fuji seemingly failed to read from the bottom of page two through the middle of page three.
I wrote in post # 11
If you believe that the Individual mandate was not held to be an overreach of both the Commerce Clause as well as of the Necesary and Proper Clause, then again I suggest that you read from the bottom of page two of the opinion through the middle of page three of the opinion. Look at #64 for the link.
No, I posted that the individual mandate was a clear over-reach of the Commerce Clause. That you want to stretch what I stated is fine, given that you are not a Judge with jurisdiction.
What frankly is just as interesting as The Chief Justice siding with the liberal four, was that Justice Kennedy did not just side in part with the conservative four, he wanted to hold the entire law unconstitutional.
Go up to #64 click on the link and read the first three pages, pretend that you have twenty seconds to get whether the law has been upheld or held unconstitutional and I believe you will see why on live television they initially got it wrong.
The individual mandate was not an over-reach of the Commerce Clause. That is false. The individual mandate was a tax. The fact that somebody might have made a wrong argument that it was covered by the Commerce Clause is irrelevant. Besides which the wording in your posts clearly indicated you thought that part would be found unconstitutional, and that "the rest" would be constitutional.
Aardvark: 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.
You know I've disagreed with of lot of TERBites who just come unglued on you. But in this instance I honestly have to say in what the Hell State are you admitted to the Bar? Of what the Hell Law School are you a graduate?
You know better than the entire U.S. Supreme Court or did it just happen to escape your attention that both the majority as well as the dissenters agreed that that it was an overreach of the Commerce Cause!?
So that The President, Speaker Pelosi etc. . . all insisted the it was not a tax until the Solicitor General as his second alternate argument to the Court said that if it was not Constitutional under the Commerce or the Necessary and Proper Clause then it must be a tax. . . is all irrelevant?
Well, roll me in egg and flour and bake me for 30 minutes. I never expected Chief Justice Roberts to cross over and join the liberal wing of the bench on this. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find anytime this has happened previously. Scalia must be totally pissed off. Good. He deserves it.
Many people have suggested that what Roberts did was to protect the court from charges of judicial activism .
"Members of this court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
His take on the commerce clause:
The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.
Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and -- under the Government's theory -- empower Congress to make those decisions for him...
The proximity and degree of connection between the mandate and the subsequent commercial activity is too lacking to justify an exception of the sort urged by the Government. The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to "regulate Commerce."
And the fundamental flaw of the American system remains the inability to control costs.
So here's some things I've read over time......
60 percent of all bankruptcies in the USA are medically related
The USA spents 16 percent of GNP on medical issues. Canada 11 percent
1 sixth of the population does not have medical insurance.
A doctor in the USA is 9 times more likely to recomend a testing procedure if he has a financial stake in it.
How this act can possibly be worse than the status quo is beyond me.
Every time I travel to the USA I get asked about how our system works. All tell me the same thing
"But that's not what the news says".
The American people are being lied to. Pure and simple.
For profit over the health of their own neighbours. Their own countrymen.
Shame on them.
60 percent of all bankruptcies in the USA are medically related
The USA spents 16 percent of GNP on medical issues. Canada 11 percent
1 sixth of the population does not have medical insurance.
A doctor in the USA is 9 times more likely to recomend a testing procedure if he has a financial stake in it.
How this act can possibly be worse than the status quo is beyond me.
Every time I travel to the USA I get asked about how our system works. All tell me the same thing
"But that's not what the news says".
The American people are being lied to. Pure and simple.
For profit over the health of their own neighbours. Their own countrymen.
Shame on them.
I hope you are not just refering to the republicans. I have no doubt there are more than a few Democrats on the pocket of Big Medical.+1!!!
And the right has the best paid LIARS Big Money, that owns them, can buy!...
This issue is systemic. In the Govt halls. The the newsroom halls. The halls of Justice(civil)
All have a stake in it. And a hand out........
Asterix, I believe you will find you put far more ulterior motive not to mention conspiracy into Supreme Court deliberations whether in Canada or the U.S.A than is there.
Say what now? Where did I even suggest there was a "conspiracy"? Honestly, where do you come up with this stuff? I've read a fair bit on the history of the Supreme Court, and one thing I've learned is that their personalities, and how they interact with each other, matter a great deal. Some of the transformations in philosophy that some Justices have gone through were truly astonishing. I haven't read or heard anyone say they weren't surprised by Chief Justice Roberts decision.
They did no such thing. They said an argument by the government over reached the commerce clause. They said the individual mandate was a tax. You are shifting the meaning of "it" to refer to an argument in one case (which over reached the commerce clause) and the individual mandate on the other (which is a lawful tax).Aardvark154 said:
At any rate, you were wrong in predicting the court would strike down the individual mandate, which error you made together with most others here who made predictions.
