Obama appeals health care setback to high court (Stevens: Health-Care Law Has Precedent)

Yahoo ^ | 9/28/11 | Mark Sherman

[Libloather]

Obama appeals health care setback to high court
Mark Sherman, Associated Press
Wednesday September 28, 2011, 10:14 pm EDT

**SNIP**

Stevens, who retired last year, said his former colleagues would not be affected by the potential impact of their decision on Obama's re-election chances.

"They'll decide it on the law. I'm totally convinced of that," he said.

Obama appointed Stevens' successor, Elena Kagan.

Stevens said that if he still had a vote on the court on timing, he would cast it in favor of hearing the case sooner rather than later. He would not say how he would vote on the issue of the law's constitutionality, although he said the court's 6-3 decision in a 2005 case involving medical marijuana seems to lend support to the administration's defense of the law.

Stevens wrote the opinion that held that the Constitution allows federal regulation of homegrown marijuana as interstate commerce. A central dispute in the health care case is over Congress's power under the Constitution's commerce clause to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

In addition to the competing rulings on the law's validity, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled that it was premature to decide the law's constitutionality. Citing a federal law aimed at preventing lawsuits from tying up tax collection, that court held that a definitive ruling could come only after taxpayers begin paying the penalty for not purchasing insurance.

[Libloather]

He's out pimping his new book.

Health-Care Law Has Precedent, Retired Justice Stevens Says
“To the extent that the commerce clause is an issue in the case, it just seems to me very similar” to the medical marijuana dispute, said Stevens, who served on the court for 34 years.

[stevie_d_64]

Stevens must be smoking something funny...

[douginthearmy]

Stevens wrote the opinion that held that the Constitution allows federal regulation of homegrown marijuana as interstate commerce.

What's that Drug Warriors? The government you empowered has passed a law using your precedents against you... never would have guessed!

[wiggen]

“The 2005 marijuana ruling will be a pivotal precedent when the justices consider the health-care law. In his opinion for the court then, Stevens pointed to a constitutional provision letting Congress enact laws “necessary and proper” for carrying out powers specifically mentioned in the Constitution”
Someone who know about this stuff mind letting the rest of us know what specifically is in the constitution that needed to be carried out in relation to medical marijuana?

[Adder]

While, since 1937, the Court HAS indeed held that private use can be interstate commerce; that doesn’t mean the Constitution SAYS its true.

The ruling that started it was wrong and every ruling that relies on it is wrong.

Besides, in this case its not even “commerce”...this ruling would say the Constitution DEMANDS that you engage in commerce. Thats a bit different, I think.

[Georgia Girl 2]

I agree. Its the individual mandate that is blatantly unconstitutional. I don’t believe that has anything to do with the 2005 Marijuana case.

Of course I’m sure Elena Kagan has no idea of how she would vote. (sarc)