I think it was a reasonable prediction fugi, or are you patting yourself on the back for not saying anything until it was all over? Btw it's Asterix not astrix, unless you want me to start referring to you as fuj.
Will the SCOUS Strike Down Any Part of Obamacare?
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
I think it was a reasonable prediction fugi, or are you patting yourself on the back for not saying anything until it was all over? Btw it's Asterix not astrix, unless you want me to start referring to you as fuj.
Hahah, thanks for my early morning laugh. Needless to say, I predict he'll make up for it now.
Perhaps I mistook your tone. I will fully agree that the positions of both the Chief Justice and of Justice Kennedy were not what most of us thought they would be.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.
Not to mention that the Solicitor General made an very end of his arguement, alternative argument - that it was a tax. If he had not done so there would have been a very different decision.I got Kennedy wrong but not Roberts. So not everyone was surprised. And my reasoning was based on logic. The law has been in effect for some time. To overturn it at this stage would have been chaotic. Roberts did not want the SC to be responsible for the ensuing disruption. It had to be upheld. Most of those who predicted termination of the individual mandate did so from a purely legalistic perspective - they forgot practicality.
It has certainly not escaped the attention of either U.S. News outlets or politicians that the President has repeatedly stated that it was not a tax.
It was the general agreement of most lawyers that although the wisdom of Single Payer may be in doubt - it depends in part upon what model is used, there is very little doubt that it would be constitutional.I will make a prediction: in the long run the US will have universal health care. The constitutionality of such a thing is now firmly established. If the current law gets rolled back, eventually another will be enacted.
Well, you disagree with this morning's ABA Journal as well.They did no such thing. They said an argument by the government over reached the commerce clause. . .
However, to throw you a bone it was a 5-4 decision The Chief and JJ Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.
JJ Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor did not join in that part of the opinion (now if one wants to discuss political justices - but lets not)
What I find funny is that people have been voting in the poll after the decision was released. What for? I believe it was 11 to 3 before the verdict was released. The clear majority thought the court would partially strike the law down (I was one of those people, not because I think the ACA was unconstitutional, but because of anti-Obama animus on the court. Happily I was wrong!)
They did partially strike the law down. Not, however, the individual mandate, rather states and the expansion of Medicaid.What I find funny is that people have been voting in the poll after the decision was released. What for? I believe it was 11 to 3 before the verdict was released. The clear majority thought the court would partially strike the law down (I was one of those people, not because I think the ACA was unconstitutional, but because of anti-Obama animus on the court. Happily I was wrong!)
You are not reading carefully enough. The court ruled that the commerce clause does not give Congress the power to enact the individual mandate, that the argument that it does over reached. To the individual mandate itself it is more accurate to say that the commerce clause is irrelevant / does not apply, because it is a tax, based on the ruling.Aardvark154 said: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.
To say that the mandate itself "over reaches" implies that the mandate itself is unconstitutional, somehow disallowed by the commerce clause, which is untrue.
Maybe you aren't used to thinking carefully about these sorts of differences, but the court sure did.
I am not sure the hammer has been removed from the tool belt. The Repubs are going to continue to beat the drum on this issue, and it may mobilize their base.As a senator, Obama voted against confirming John Roberts Jr as a SC justice. And yet Roberts is the one who preserved his legacy and prevented Mitt Romney and the Republicans from gaining a hammer to hit Obama and the Democrats. Irony or ironies.
It's comical watching GOPers act like a bunch of carping crybabies over this big issue they lost BIGTIME!!!....:biggrin1:
Sure. The hammer of litigation has been taken from them, and they will now saw away at this during the election. The election is a better venue for the debate, honestly.rld said:I am not sure the hammer has been removed from the tool belt. The Repubs are going to continue to beat the drum on this issue, and it may mobilize their base.
There are problems with this version of universal health care, and it may be revised or even repealed, but SOME plan will eventually be realized because it's now crystal clear that it is within the remit of the Federal government to do so. It is only a matter of time now.
Or our Republican Cementheads will use this tactic their 'tool' Bobbi Jindal is using
Louisiana Gov. Jindal still refuses to implement Obamacare
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a possible Republican vice presidential contender who has refused to establish a federally mandated health care exchange in his state, said Friday that he will continue to ignore it.
Louisiana Gov. Jindal still refuses to implement Obamacare
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a possible Republican vice presidential contender who has refused to establish a federally mandated health care exchange in his state, said Friday that he will continue to ignore it.
There may have been some who said that it was constitutionally not within the remit of the Federal Government, however, the question most people ask instead is what can we do which will be constitutional.SOME plan will eventually be realized because it's now crystal clear that it is within the remit of the Federal government to do so. It is only a matter of time now.
Fuji for the last time get with legal thought. The USSC indeed ruled that the individual mandate, was an overreach of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses. It, however, was saved because it was held to to be constitutionally a tax (in other words that was the point at which the Chief Justice changed his prospective and the justices with whom he was agreeing).You are not reading carefully enough. The court ruled that the commerce clause does not give Congress the power to enact the individual mandate, that the argument that it does over reached. To the individual mandate itself it is more accurate to say that the commerce clause is irrelevant / does not apply, because it is a tax, based on the ruling.
To say that the mandate itself "over reaches" implies that the mandate itself is unconstitutional, somehow disallowed by the commerce clause, which is untrue.
Maybe you aren't used to thinking carefully about these sorts of differences, but the court sure did.
I must add that if you think I have this wrong so must the various State Attorneys General who had a teleconference earlier today.
Technical Slidebone rather than literal, and doubtless so, it is like when you discuss an article in the Lancet or the JAMA with your friend a physician.I think you are being excessively literal, Aardvaark. The ACA was found to be constitutional. The SCOTUS has slightly modified it, that's all.
Why do you continue to try and justify or explain a correct prediction. You were right and most pundits were wrong. The Court held that the mandate was not permitted under the commerce clause. hence that was an unconstitutional use of that power. It was then save because it was within the jurisdiction of the federal government under its taxation powers. You are correct. end of story. fuji is just being fuji.Technical Slidebone rather than literal, and doubtless so, it is like when you discuss an article in the Lancet or the JAMA with your friend a physician.
Oh it is just the teacher in me, 'perhaps they didn't understand it." I agree it is beating a dead horse. :deadhorse: EOMWhy do you continue to try and justify or explain a correct prediction. You were right and most pundits were wrong. The Court held that the mandate was not permitted under the commerce clause. hence that was an unconstitutional use of that power. It was then save because it was within the jurisdiction of the federal government under its taxation powers. You are correct. end of story. fuji is just being fuji.
