Posted on 12/15/2018 9:22:42 AM PST by marktwain
The United States healthcare system touches millions of lives in a daily and deeply personal way. Health-insurance policy is therefore a politically charged affair—inflaming emotions and testing civility. But Article III courts, the Supreme Court has confirmed, are not tasked with, nor are they suited to, policymaking.1 Instead, courts resolve discrete cases and controversies. And sometimes, a court must determine whether the Constitution grants Congress the power it asserts and what results if it does not. If a party shows that a policymaker exceeded the authority granted it by the Constitution, the fruit of that unauthorized action cannot stand.The decision is 55 pages long. I have not converted it into text, because it is in some kind of pdf format, which makes it difficult to convert.
This is the actual decision's opening paragraph, and links to the actual decision.
It is “funny”, is it not, that Ten Years After the imposition of Obamacare, it takes a judge of presumably great intellect and Who has engaged in extensive study to arrive at a conclusion that most conservatives arrived at relatively instantaneously.
california is appealing according to this mornings LA times
They ran headline, Obamacare found to be unconstitutional bit ran tin the second section instead of the first page.
counting on it
If they aren't a party in the suit, how can they have standing to appeal? If I observe court proceedings and disagree with the outcome, I can leave the Gallery, walk over to the Clerks Ofc and file an appeal?
This little post says so. So does the image from the decision:
"California, et al. Intervenors-Defendants"
Not very appealing, any more. I would love to visit the Monterey area again, if only it were not in California.
Unfortunately government-mandated "emergency" care by hospitals regardless of patients' ability to pay isn't over.
“Who has engaged in extensive study to arrive at a conclusion that most conservatives arrived at relatively instantaneously’
And to my understanding Roberts dictating the law was constitutional on the basis of it being a tax. Yet the bill originated in the Senate which is not within the Constitution. Taxation originates within the house. I know there are lawsuits that went down that route but of course they were thrown out. Why?
I was told this morning on another thread that they were NOT a party in this suit. Thanks for your point.
Lots of speculation and spin.
Good to go to the original source.
In oceanside 2 miles from pendleton
after trump was elected, they hired Holder’s firm to sue the feds anytime they felt like it. They must have 12-14 suits in now. Judges don’t seem to care about the harassment
see today’sLA Times
[[And to my understanding Roberts dictating the law was constitutional on the basis of it being a tax.]]
Which i can’t for the life of me understand- Government can NOT compel anyone to purchase anything- ever- Regardless of whether it’s a tax or not. It can’t say ‘purchase this product against your will, pay this tax, or you will be punished’- A person is free to roam these states living entirely off the land, never paying anyone anything if they so choose- and government was not free to punish the person for doing so (as long as the person obeyed laws)- then along came the abomination obamacare- mandating that everyone must have health insurance, or else, turning people into criminals, tax scofflaws, who could be fined, if they didn’t purchase healthcare
So yes, they did away with the penalty- which means the mandated tax is no longer a government mandated tax- but rather just a optional tax now- like any other optional tax- like car insurance, IF i wish to drive, I must purchase insurance, BUT I am under no obligation to do so, I could choose to never drive- it’s my choice- or paying actual taxes, like on clothing- I could choose to make my own clothing out of free bark or grass if i wish to, I’m not forced to purchase clothing from stores-
Roberts declared the government had the right force people to purchase something AGAINST THEIR WILL because it supposedly’ involved a tax with punishments inplace for those who didn’t comply with purchase requirement’? When has our government ever been given the right to force people to purchase anything they don’t wish to purchase? IF they have that right, where does it stop? “People must now purchase chewing gum on a daily basis by order of the government”? “People must now purchase sushi every day even if they are allergic to fish, by order of the government”?
Government doesn’t have the right to impose mandatory taxes that people must pay against their will by purchasing something they don’t want. They do have a right to impose a tax on purchases for things people choose- but they can’t compel the person, via threat of penalty, to buy something they don’t want and choose not to participate in (ie healthcare, paying taxes on clothing, buying devices that have taxes on them etc)-
Same problem here - I fell in love with the Laguna Beach area in my youth; cant find in on my map of the United States any more.
The senate does this regularly. They take an unrelated bill from the House, "amend" it by deleting most or all of the text and insert the language of the tax and spend bill they want to pass. SCOTUS has not seen fit to rule against this.
Origination clause: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."
Same reason we have not had a budget for 10 years, even though the Constitution requires the Congress pass one every two years!
The Media and Progressives (same thing) do not believe in the Constitution. They would not be able to get away with these egregious violations of the Constitution, if the Mass Media held them accountable.
Suppose the New York Times ran editorials every day, about how the bedrock of the U.S.A. was in danger because the Congress ignored their Constitutionally required duties. How long would this last? about a week, max.
Here is an article I wrote explaining why Progressives detest the Constitution. It is about the Second Amendment, but it applies to everything else.
Some say it is the best I have written.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.