Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court has agreed to hear legal challenges to Obama health care law
MSNBC ^ | Nov 14, 2011

Posted on 11/14/2011 7:15:57 AM PST by Second Amendment First

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: apastron

The next Congress and the new REPUBLICAN President will have to PERMANENTLY overturn Obamacare.


21 posted on 11/14/2011 7:57:46 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
I don’t hold out much hope with the SC

Me either. About the best thing about this getting heard soon is that Conservatives currently hold a marginal sway on the court. If it waits any longer, Obama might get a crack at changing that balance.

My Best Guess is that it will be a muddled, neutral decision that doesn't really settle anything one way or the other.

Best case is "It's unconstitutional", which I frankly doubt will happen. Too many politics involved, and the libs on the court will put paid to that happening, I think.

Worst case is "The bulk of this is constitutional, end of story.", which I think is also a fairly likely outcome. 75% of the law will stand, and the rest will be backdoored through later on when the American People go back to watching "Dancing with the Stars".

I wish that I was wrong. Frankly, and without trying to be too hyperbolic, I think that ObamaCare will be the end of American society, at least as we know it. If, for no other reason than the required loss of freedoms, and the guaranteed loss of employers that will be its end result.

22 posted on 11/14/2011 7:58:42 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
-- This is incorrect. SCOTUS will decide the constitutionality of the law. --

They have certainly been asked to decide it, but they can rule that the issue isn't yet ripe.

At least one case at the Circuit level was decided on the basis of "standing," of some form. IIRC, it was the one where a state passed a law making federalized purchase mandates illegal in that state.

23 posted on 11/14/2011 8:03:12 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

I think Obama wanted this to be fast tracked because he already knows the out come.

No one has standing any more.

We are running out of soap boxes and ballot boxes.. but the ammo boxes are still full... Just saying.


24 posted on 11/14/2011 8:05:18 AM PST by cableguymn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

no, the order sets forth exactly what is to be argued, constitutionality is what will be decided.


25 posted on 11/14/2011 8:07:28 AM PST by Founding Father (The Pedophile moHAMmudd (PBUH---Pigblood be upon him))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
They have certainly been asked to decide it, but they can rule that the issue isn't yet ripe.

They've got conflicting lower court rulings piling up left and right. I don't think they can punt on this one.

26 posted on 11/14/2011 8:07:34 AM PST by kevkrom (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wbill

Lots of insurance companies will go out of business = lots of job losses. Same in the medical field.


27 posted on 11/14/2011 8:26:00 AM PST by Terry Mross (We need an opposition party. I will only vote for a second party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

Yep. Just as it was planned. Also a lot of infirm and elderly will die for lack of treatment. But again, just as it was planned.<p.Thanks to the obama and Democrat voters.


28 posted on 11/14/2011 8:29:26 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn
No one has standing any more.

If zer0 has his druthers, he'd have 8 of the 9 Supremes recuse themselves. Obviously, the only one that knows thoroughly enough all about zer0Care on that court to judge its constitutionality is Kagen. She has "standing". In this scenario, I'll take a wild guess and predict its upheld as constitutional by a vote of 1 to 0.

29 posted on 11/14/2011 8:31:16 AM PST by C210N (zer0 - a Marxonist spreading the flames of obamunism wherever he goes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Think about this for a moment. Dems have been screaming bloody murder for decades that health care is too inaccessible, yet in almost the same breath they whine and moan about how there are too many people straining Mother Gaia’s resources. Then, when they think no one’s watching, they whisper about how they wouldn’t mind a violent revolution to dispose of those of us who refuse to think like them.

They must be true idiots.

Now, when they start advocating for fatty, sugary foods, pay-for-service healthcare, gun rights, that is, anything and everything that raises the mortality ate of their “inferiors”, I’ll be at somewhat impressed (repulsed, but at least they’ll look intelligently diabolic).


30 posted on 11/14/2011 8:38:45 AM PST by Windcatcher (Obama is a COMMUNIST and the MSM is his armband-wearing propaganda machine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
Stop me if I've told you this, I've mentioned it on a couple of other threads.

Next Door Neighbor provides insurance for small businesses. He calls himself "Their HR Dept."

We were yakking awhile ago, talk turned to politics, and I jokingly asked him how he was liking ObamaCare.

He stopped dead - we were in the process of taking down a tree on our property line - and replied "You have no idea how bad this is going to be."

Most of his clients are dropping him completely. (think landscapers, realtors, etc. Small, local businesses with one or two people running the show, then with a receptionist, accountant, maybe a handfull of workers, etc etc etc. Typical local small businesses). According to this guy, if they're old enough to retire, they're saying "To Heck with this." and getting out. Or, if they're young enough, they're laying off all their workers and going it alone.

My neighbor wasn't 100% sure what he was going to do. And, he's not a guy that's prone to hyperbole, so if he says that he's worried, I'm worried. I've been saving every penny that I can, and I've been working hard to cement myself into my current job, while simultaneously snooping around for other options in case I need a parachute. :-(

31 posted on 11/14/2011 8:39:31 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Java4Jay

I’m more pessimistic about this than before...with the ruling that came out recently, written by Judge Lawrence Silberman, historically one of the most conservative jurists in the country, upholding it as constitutional, that could sway Anthony Kennedy.


32 posted on 11/14/2011 8:51:28 AM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
-- the order sets forth exactly what is to be argued, constitutionality is what will be decided. --

I agreed with you as to what would be argued. My point was that the Court is not bound to decide the underlying issue, even if it hears argument on the merits. Here are the orders. Notice the argument that suit is barred by the AIA ...

11-393     )    NAT. FED'N INDEP. BUSINESS V. SEBELIUS, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.
           )
11-400     )    FLORIDA, ET AL. V. DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL.

                     The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 11-393 is
               granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 11-400 is
               granted limited to the issue of severability presented by
               Question 3 of the petition.     The cases are consolidated and a
               total of 90 minutes is allotted for oral argument.

11-398          DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL. V. FLORIDA, ET AL.

                    The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In
               addition to Question 1 presented by the petition, the parties
               are directed to brief and argue the following question:
               "Whether the suit brought by respondents to challenge the
               minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and
               Affordable Care Act is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act,
               26 U.S.C. AS:7421(a)."   A total of two hours is allotted for oral
               argument on Question 1.   One hour is allotted for oral argument
               on the additional question.

11-400         FLORIDA, ET AL. V. DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL.

                   The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
                Question 1 presented by the petition.

33 posted on 11/14/2011 8:52:08 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
-- They've got conflicting lower court rulings piling up left and right. I don't think they can punt on this one. --

Conflicting orders is nothing more than a force that augurs in favor of SCOTUS hearing the case and setting a rule. They can punt very well, have been doing it for years.

34 posted on 11/14/2011 8:53:39 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Exactly. The SCOTUS will not make a difference one way or another. They’ll simply muddy the waters. It is up the us to take our rights back at the ballot box.


35 posted on 11/14/2011 9:03:28 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Windcatcher
they whisper about how they wouldn’t mind a violent revolution to dispose of those of us who refuse to think like them.

I would love to see such an action - see, they got that half right...

36 posted on 11/14/2011 9:05:04 AM PST by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wbill

You are exactly correct. They’ll sustain a large portion of the law. It’s disgusting that our ‘conservative’ SC Justices aren’t really that into our liberty. Thomas being the exception.


37 posted on 11/14/2011 9:05:12 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

The issue is precedence and how likely are the current Justices to overturn it and restore our liberties?


38 posted on 11/14/2011 9:07:57 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
"If the SC rules in favor of obama, it hands him the election. Of course, I’m about 90% convinced it’s all rigged anyway.

I disagree. In Supreme Court decisions I have read when a questionable law is found not to have violated the constitution, the justices usually take pains to point out it is an issue that must be decided on a political basis by Congress. That could make the 2012 election a public referendum on Obamacare and if the public is educated about what the program actually contains and the effect it will have on an already over-burdened healthcare system, it could be a republican landslide.

39 posted on 11/14/2011 9:14:18 AM PST by In Maryland ("If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Based on the 11th Circuit Court decision I have no confidence the SC will rule it unconstitutional. Kennedy has all the cover he needs from Silberman to rule in favor of the law.


40 posted on 11/14/2011 9:39:22 AM PST by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson