Skip to comments.Even If It Survives the Court, the Health Care Law Is Doomed
Posted on 03/30/2012 10:03:17 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Media coverage now implies that the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the fate of President Obama's health care law. But nothing the court decides will keep the law alive for more than a brief period of time...even if the law survives the Supreme Court and the next election, the clock will be ticking.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
a. SCOTUS in this case.
b. Republicans do it politically after this election.
c. American society will demand it as their choices shrink...
I had to post something contrary....Rush Limbaugh was bumming me out with his talk of the "conventional wisdom" saying the Court may rule 6 to 3 in FAVOR of Obamacare.
America is doomed unless the weasels occupying the central socialist government are removed!
Yes. The Tree of Liberty.
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with of blood of patriots and tyrants."~~ Thomas Jefferson
“Rush Limbaugh was bumming me out with his talk of the “conventional wisdom” saying the Court may rule 6 to 3 in FAVOR of Obamacare.”
He was citing liberal Scotusblog.
Thanks for the clarification. I was only half listening and did not know who he was quoting but I do know he just mentioned all the agents hired to track down who does not have the insurance. If it is a huge benevolant gift from our government..why do they have to hire IRS agents to ensure we buy the gift?
The options are:
(1) only the individual mandate is overturned and Congress finds another way to pay for the monstrosity. They always do;
(2) SCOTUS overturns ObamaCare, at least substantially, in its entirety;
(3) ObamaCare is upheld by SCOTUS, and
... (i) remains on the books; or
... (ii) is AMENDED by a filibuster-proof Republican majority in the Senate and the signature of a Republican President.
By the time that the Republicans have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, January 2015 at the earliest, if ever, too much of the population will consider socialized medicine to be their birthright for a repeal to politically possible. Consider Title X.
Not likely, as the republican party cannot find a capable (of beating Zero) candidate!
... please read Bryer’s dissenting opinion in United States vs. Lopez in wikipedia. Lopez limited the ‘commerce clause’ but Bryer dissented.
If Bryer hasn’t changed his criteria since that ruling, he will rule in favor of Obamacare.
... excerpt from the wikipedia entry.
Justice Breyer authored the principal dissenting opinion. He applied three principles that he considered basic:
1.The Commerce Clause included the power to regulate local activities so long as those “significantly affect” interstate commerce.
2.In considering the question, a court must consider not the individual act being regulated (a single instance of gun possession) but rather the cumulative effect of all similar acts (i.e., the effect of all guns possessed in or near schools).
3.A court must specifically determine not whether the regulated activity significantly affected interstate commerce, but whether Congress could have had a “rational basis” for so concluding.
With these principles in mind, Justice Breyer asked if Congress could have rationally found that the adverse effect of violent crime in school zones, acting through the intermediary effect of degrading the quality of education, could significantly affect interstate commerce. Based on the existence of empirical studies, he answered this question affirmatively. He pointed out the growing importance of education in the job market, noting that increased global competition made primary and secondary education more important. He also observed that US firms make location decisions, in part, on the presence or absence of an educated work force.
Thus, Justice Breyer concluded that it was obvious that gun related violence could have an effect on interstate commerce. The only question remaining, then, was whether Congress could have rationally concluded that the effect could be “substantial.” Congress could have rationally concluded, in Justice Breyer’s judgment, that the linkage from gun violence to an impaired learning environment, and from this impaired environment to the consequent adverse economic effects, was sufficient to create a risk to interstate commerce that was “substantial.”
Congress, in Justice Breyer’s view, had a rational basis “for finding a significant connection between guns in or near schools and (through their effect on education) the interstate and foreign commerce they threaten.” In his opinion, no more than this was required to find sufficient supporting power for the challenged law under the Commerce Clause, and he consequently believed that the Court of Appeals had erred and should be reversed.
Justice Souter’s opinion warned that the distinction between “commercial” and “non-commercial” activity was not tenable and he echoed the “rational basis” theme of the Breyer dissent.
Justice Stevens, in his dissent, iterated his agreement with the Breyer dissent that found ample Congressional power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the possession of firearms in schools, in the same way that Congress may act to protect the school environment from alcohol or asbestos. He also agreed with Justice Souter’s “exposition of the radical character of the Court’s holding and its kinship with the discredited, pre-Depression version of substantive due process.”
If SCOTUS doesn’t do it, the GOP won’t do it.
The big push for this is that the current health care system is paid for by companies. They want to dump the cost of the insurance on the states, and ultimately on the individual tax payers.
The money is lined up for a form of socialized medicine in two years, no matter what. If the SCOTUS doesn't over turn it, B and C will not happen.
This probably should have it's own thread but I don't have time at this time.
Finding one is not the problem.
“b. Republicans do it politically after this election.”
It is beginning to look like Romney will be the nominee and he will lose in November. We haven’t even begun to see the Democrat and media attacks on Romney flip flops and his religion.
If the court upholds Obamacare and Obama is reelected, it is highly unlikely the Republicans will overturn it even if they retain the House and take the Senate. Without a filibuster proof majority in the Senate the Republicans won’t be able to pass a bill undoing Obamacare. Even if they somehow got a repeal bill through the Senate (assuming the House vote for repeal is automatic), Obama will veto the legislation and the Republican’s won’t have the votes to override.
The only sure fire way to repeal Obamacare in 2013 is to have Republican president, Republican majority in the House, and a filibuster proof Republican majority in the Senate.
The way I see it the only way Obamacare is defeated is for the Supreme Court to rule against it.
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.