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

Skip to comments.

Supporters Slow to Grasp Health Law’s Legal Risks
NY Times ^ | 6/24/12 | PETER BAKER

Posted on 06/24/2012 3:52:13 AM PDT by jimbo123

With the Supreme Court likely to render judgment on President Obama’s health care law this week, the White House and Congress find themselves in a position that many advocates of the legislation once considered almost unimaginable.

In passing the law two years ago, Democrats entertained little doubt that it was constitutional. The White House held a conference call to tell reporters that any legal challenge, as one Obama aide put it, “will eventually fail and shouldn’t be given too much credence in the press.”

Congress held no hearing on the plan’s constitutionality until nearly a year after it was signed into law. Representative Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker, scoffed when a reporter asked what part of the Constitution empowered Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance. “Are you serious?” she asked with disdain. “Are you serious?”

-snip

Adversaries said the law’s proponents had been too attentive to liberal academics who shaped public discussion. “There’s very little diversity in the legal academy among law professors,” said Randy E. Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor and a leading thinker behind the challenge. “So they’re in an echo chamber listening to people who agree with them.”

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: healthcare; obamacare
The Rat Meltdown over ObamaCare's spectacular flop begins tomorrow. Bring some popcorn.
1 posted on 06/24/2012 3:52:26 AM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
The White House held a conference call to tell reporters that any legal challenge, as one Obama aide put it, “will eventually fail and shouldn’t be given too much credence in the press.”

Read those words carefully a couple of times.

Sometimes, the truth of things just slips out.

2 posted on 06/24/2012 3:56:55 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Anna Wintour makes Teresa Heinz Kerry look like Dolly Parton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

What scares me is that Mr. Obama, Congresswoman Pelosi and Senator Reid could even be elected to high office in the first place. Name another world power that would even contemplate giving the nuclear codes to Barack Hussein Obama or put Nancy Pelosi third in line for the presidency, as she was from 2007 to 2011. I can’t think of one. German chancellor Angela Merkel is Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher and Albert Einstein all rolled into one in comparison to those three. Hell, Hubert Humphrey is starting to look good.


3 posted on 06/24/2012 4:00:40 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (In honor of my late father, GunnerySgt/Commo Chief, USMC 1943-65)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
This will be the first time that Osama Obama's ever been told "no" in his life.It will be a beautiful sight to behold.Of course,the second time he's told "no" will come in December of this year,when the Electors meet in official session.That will be even sweeter.
4 posted on 06/24/2012 4:03:19 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Bill Ayers Was *Not* "Just Some Guy In The Neighborhood")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

Even Reggie Love won’t be able to console the petulant Kenyan after he’s evicted from the White House in January.


5 posted on 06/24/2012 4:05:48 AM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

Nancy Pelosi statd we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it.

Problem what was in it wasn’t even written into it.

The Bill grows at the pleasure of the Secretary of Health and Human services.She is given so much discretion,almost nothing is beyond her reach.Too much power for one bureaucrat.


6 posted on 06/24/2012 4:07:33 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
The Bill grows at the pleasure of the Secretary of Health and Human services.She is given so much discretion,almost nothing is beyond her reach.Too much power for one bureaucrat.

If the Court doesn't put a stop to this now, there will be lawsuits for 100 years over all the OTHER parts of the bill.

You are correct that the Bill delegates too much power to the Secretary. The IPAB is the most glaringly unconstitutional thing I have ever heard of - a law which pretends to remove from future Congresses the power to write laws?

I mean, if THAT'S not unconstitutional, nothing is.

7 posted on 06/24/2012 4:13:36 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Anna Wintour makes Teresa Heinz Kerry look like Dolly Parton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
FWIW
Intrade is a betting website. They have a very good record at predicting outcomes. They have ObamaCare very likely to be declared unconstitutional.

The US Supreme Court to rule individual mandate unconstitutional before midnight ET 31 Dec 2012 (78.2% Chance)

http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/

8 posted on 06/24/2012 4:35:57 AM PDT by preacher (Communism has only killed 100 million people: Let's give it another chance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
“There’s very little diversity in the legal academy among law professors,........So they’re in an echo chamber listening to people who agree with them.”

The same can be said of the leftist media.

9 posted on 06/24/2012 4:35:57 AM PDT by SnuffaBolshevik (In a tornado, even turkeys can fly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
“The Republicans on the Hill were no better than the Democrats...

except ALL the Republicans in the House and Senate voted AGAINST the d@mn thing. Remember???? This is the Democrats baby. Pure and simple.

10 posted on 06/24/2012 4:39:29 AM PDT by MulberryDraw (That which cannot be paid, won't be paid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SnuffaBolshevik
The same can be said of the leftist media.

Funny how this was printed in the NY Times...
11 posted on 06/24/2012 4:40:19 AM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

First think Obama does is ry to claw back everything he can by bureaucratic subterfuge, fund-embezzlement from other programs, and Executive Order.


12 posted on 06/24/2012 4:43:42 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers?" - St. Augustine of Hippo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
But they underestimated the chances that conservative judges might, in this view, radically reinterpret or discard those precedents.

I heard this on CNN yesterday. Liberal talking point #1: ObamaCare was struck down because of radical conservative judges who are politicizing it.

13 posted on 06/24/2012 4:46:39 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

When will we on FR treat the Mainstream Media as propaganda pure and simple?


14 posted on 06/24/2012 4:52:47 AM PDT by ardara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: preacher

Considering InTrade has Obama being re-elected at 53.9%, I think the credibility of that system is quite suspect .....


15 posted on 06/24/2012 4:53:53 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
I heard this on CNN yesterday. Liberal talking point #1: ObamaCare was struck down because of radical conservative judges who are politicizing it.

I see. Judging laws on the basis of constitutionality is now "politicizing" them. Mhm.

16 posted on 06/24/2012 4:53:53 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ardara
When will we on FR treat the Mainstream Media as propaganda pure and simple?

Some of us have been since 1979. As an 17 year old watching the Iranian Hostage Crisis unfold on TV I can still remember the day I decided that the media was not to be believed when I watched them provide air cover day, after day, after day for Jimmy Carter.

I wrote the media off completely in 1980 when they tried telling the electorate that Ronald Reagan was a doddering old fool who upon entering office was going to push the button and start nuclear war with Russia.

With "news coverage" like that, who needs the media? I haven't considered them credible for decades already. The rest of you need to catch-up.

17 posted on 06/24/2012 4:58:29 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
Pelosi...“We’re ironclad on the constitutionality of the bill,” she told CBS this month. “I think we’ll be 6-3 in our favor.”

To quote one of her fellow Representatives, Pelosi is mind-numbingly stupid.

18 posted on 06/24/2012 5:02:00 AM PDT by 2nd Bn, 11th Mar (The "p" in Democrat stands for patriotism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

Liberal parasites don’t care about the Constitution. HHS Secretary Sebillius testified before congress that the contraceptive mandate on religious institutions did not even have a legal review prior to enactment.

These Marxists must go.


19 posted on 06/24/2012 5:09:41 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
What scares me is that Mr. Obama, Congresswoman Pelosi and Senator Reid could even be elected to high office in the first place.

Is there any way to PUNISH the district that has cursed the United States with Nazi Pu-lousy???

It's San Fran, I know, but I heard that GAP clothing is from there. That place is a CANCER on the country.

Definition of LOUSY. 1: infested with lice . 2. a: totally repulsive : contemptible b: miserably poor or inferior c: nauseous, ill felt lousy after ...

20 posted on 06/24/2012 5:14:29 AM PDT by Huebolt (It's not over until there is not ONE DEMOCRAT HOLDING OFFICE ANYWHERE. Not even a dog catcher!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: usconservative
When will we on FR treat the Mainstream Media as propaganda pure and simple?

I quit paying attention when time magazine put BOB F'IN DYLAN on the cover...

21 posted on 06/24/2012 5:18:32 AM PDT by Huebolt (It's not over until there is not ONE DEMOCRAT HOLDING OFFICE ANYWHERE. Not even a dog catcher!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
"Mr. Obama did not relent. He had an economic rationale for stabilizing a dysfunctional health system."

Only in liberal la-la land can the best health care system in world history be described as "dysfunctional".

22 posted on 06/24/2012 5:20:42 AM PDT by norwaypinesavage (Galileo: In science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huebolt
I quit paying attention when time magazine put BOB F'IN DYLAN on the cover...

I had to go look that one up to see how much older you are than me .... ;-)

23 posted on 06/24/2012 5:37:44 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
With the benefit of hindsight, some advocates said they would have been better off framing the law more explicitly as a tax, although doing so would have been politically explosive.

Key point. If they had constructed the law to be similar to the taxes assessed for Medicare and SS, it would have had constitutional precedence. But they couldn't call it a tax and get it passed, so they called it a mandate.

In the SCOTUS review, lawyers for the law tried doing the bait and switch and called the mandate a "kind of a tax". From the SCOTUS questions, it appeared that the justices weren't buying that line.

24 posted on 06/24/2012 6:08:41 AM PDT by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

This bill should have been declared unconstitutional on the process of its passage alone, never mind its content.


25 posted on 06/24/2012 6:19:03 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party Switcheroo: Economic crisis! Zero's eligibility Trumped!! Hillary 2012!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Plus at least Michael Dukakis could drive a tank.


26 posted on 06/24/2012 6:37:32 AM PDT by Diggity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I would bet my truck, house and land that if the need should arise that we have to lauch anything nuclear Obama would be the last person on earth to have the launch codes.

They may do a play acting scenario of it but at no time will Obama ever have authority to launch a nuclear weapon.

He failed to qualify as POTUS. He may be an actor in chief, an affirmative action POTUS but the reality is this, he isn’t legally the person to make that decision, all the military knows it, just most of America doesn’t.


27 posted on 06/24/2012 6:47:59 AM PDT by Eye of Unk (Islamoprogressivenists need not reply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Quote Anita Dunn: The smartest thing we did during the election was MANAGE THE MEDIA. The Obamaites have been directing Big Media the whole time. Everything they (the Obamaites) say is reported as the TRUTH.

Obama: This Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed with an overwhelming majority..........ARE YOU KIDDING ME? But the masses believe him simply because HE SAID IT. I had to educate a Leftist friend by telling him that no Republican voted for it. He asked if that was really true. Big Media has been manipulating the masses for years. Happily they are (too) slowly waking to that fact. I hope enough wake up before the 2012 election or it will be too late to save this country.

28 posted on 06/24/2012 7:26:14 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

From your lips, baby, from your lips.

Too bad what we’ll get is Romney.


29 posted on 06/24/2012 7:43:52 AM PDT by chesley (God's chosen instrument - the trumpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
Even now, Mr. Waldman considers the law “plainly constitutional” based on decades of doctrine. “It’s just that you do have this increasingly activist court,” he said.

Two points.

1. Based on "doctrine", not the constitution.

2. Projection, anyone? Increasingly activist?

30 posted on 06/24/2012 7:54:32 AM PDT by chesley (God's chosen instrument - the trumpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
Even now, Mr. Waldman considers the law “plainly constitutional” based on decades of doctrine. “It’s just that you do have this increasingly activist court,” he said.

Two points.

1. Based on "doctrine", not the constitution.

2. Projection, anyone? Increasingly activist?

31 posted on 06/24/2012 8:08:34 AM PDT by chesley (God's chosen instrument - the trumpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
Even now, Mr. Waldman considers the law “plainly constitutional” based on decades of doctrine. “It’s just that you do have this increasingly activist court,” he said.

Two points.

1. Based on "doctrine", not the constitution.

2. Projection, anyone? Increasingly activist?

32 posted on 06/24/2012 10:17:21 AM PDT by chesley (God's chosen instrument - the trumpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
Even now, Mr. Waldman considers the law “plainly constitutional” based on decades of doctrine. “It’s just that you do have this increasingly activist court,” he said.

Two points.

1. Based on "doctrine", not the constitution.

2. Projection, anyone? Increasingly activist?

33 posted on 06/24/2012 10:20:19 AM PDT by chesley (God's chosen instrument - the trumpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123; moder_ator

sorry for the repeated posts, I kept kept getting the server error, and did not realize that the comment had been posted.


34 posted on 06/24/2012 10:44:46 AM PDT by chesley (God's chosen instrument - the trumpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

This article is worth reading at the NY Times. Seems Obama’s and Nancy Pelosi’s liberal legal advisers told them that 0-Care was very Constitutional given the recent history of non-stop expansion of the Commerce Clause. More proof that DC should be nuked from orbit and start all over again

Not that liberals give a crap. They try to get what they want by any means necessary


35 posted on 06/24/2012 10:53:51 AM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

That reminds me, I gotta find a football.

:)


36 posted on 06/24/2012 11:04:29 AM PDT by 2111USMC (Not a hard man to track. Leaves dead men wherever he goes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: preacher

“The US Supreme Court to rule individual mandate unconstitutional before midnight ET 31 Dec 2012 (78.2% Chance)”

57% of former SC law clerks also think the mandate will be turned down. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/poll-former-supreme-court-clerks-think-the-mandate-is-done-for/2012/06/21/gJQAYn8ZtV_blog.html

Likewise, 57% of SCOTUS-watchers at FantasySCOTUS predict the mandate will be turned down. http://www.fantasyscotus.net/healthcare-case-predictions/ This latter group bats around .600 in making predictions about SCOTUS. Note that only 1/3 believe the mandate is not severable, i.e., that if the mandate goes, everything will be struck down.

Thus, the most likely outcome is that part(s) of the law will be voided, leaving the rest of the ugly mess behind. Republicans will need to do the rest of the heavy lifting when it comes to eradicating this turkey.


37 posted on 06/24/2012 11:58:26 AM PDT by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Name another world

I believe it's called the planet "Stupider".

38 posted on 06/24/2012 1:45:31 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

I was in the military when adults ran the show, so I have no idea how things operate now. Most of my generals were World War II or Korean War veterans and all my other officers, except for the lieutenants, were in Vietnam, including most of the ROK Army officers and senior NCOs I worked with. One of my sergeant majors was visited by the Sergeant Major of the Army on a regular basis, as they’d both been in gliders together. Our CO in Korea on my first tour went from private in the National Guard in 1940 to 4-star general and later Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.


39 posted on 06/24/2012 2:48:32 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (In honor of my late father, GunnerySgt/Commo Chief, USMC 1943-65)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

I have read that conjecture that Sotomayer maybe part of the dissent.

I pray this is true.

Talk about heads exploding!!!


40 posted on 06/24/2012 6:28:42 PM PDT by berdie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123; All

When did the first Congressman/woman file legal papers against Obama”Care?”

When did the first State file legal papers against Obama”care?”


41 posted on 06/24/2012 8:30:35 PM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123; Gay State Conservative
The Rat Meltdown over ObamaCare's spectacular flop begins tomorrow.

We'll see. In the meantime, I won't hold my breath.

42 posted on 06/24/2012 8:39:58 PM PDT by workerbee (We're not scared, Maobama -- we're pissed off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
“It was so absurd a concept that the court would do this,” Mr. Waldman recalled. “Nobody thought it was unconstitutional until quite recently.” Even now, Mr. Waldman considers the law “plainly constitutional” based on decades of doctrine. “It’s just that you do have this increasingly activist court,” he said.

Read that again, and be shocked.

Either one of two things (and possibly both) are in play:

1. The Democrats/Media/Marxists are monumentally stupid (there goes that 'I am Liberal And I Have A Higher IQ Than Conservatives' argument that is all over the net

and/or

2. The Democrats/Media/Marxists knew this was unconstitutional, and tried to get away with it

Either way, we are dealing with truly Evil people.

"Are you serious? Are you serious?"

Nancy Pelosi when asked by a reporter what part of the Constitution gave them the authority to force citizens to purchase something.

43 posted on 06/25/2012 3:43:05 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrC

In response to a message regarding why the severability clause was removed from Obamacare, I replied as follows:

I don’t think it was removed. The House passed its version of the bill first, then the Senate acted shortly before Xmas on a different version of the bill that did not happen to include a severability clause. “An earlier version of the legislation, which passed the House last November, included severability language. But that clause did not make it into the Senate version, which ultimately became law. A Democratic aide who helped write the bill characterized the omission as an oversight.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/us/politics/27health.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

I think at the time, no one was sweating the details, so to speak, since eventually the final version of the bill was to come out of conference committee (which is tasked with reconciling differing versions of the bill passed by each chamber so that the final law can be then passed again by each chamber in identical form to be signed by the president). But Scott Brown’s election in January bollixed that plan because the Senate Dems no longer had 60 votes to pass a conference committee version of the bill. So instead, the House voted to pass (barely) the Senate version of the bill and then they used budget reconciliation to pass a shorter bill that “fixed” the pieces of the Senate bill that the House didn’t like etc.

I’m no congressional expert: I don’t know whether it would have been possible to include a severability clause in the reconciliation bill, since I view such a clause as referring to the legislation its embedded in (i.e., “if any part of THIS statute is found to be unconstitutional, the remaining parts will stand”). It seems somewhat illegitimate to pass a separate bill after the fact that says “if any part of THAT statute (that was signed into law 3 days ago) is found to be unconstitutional, the remaining parts will stand.” The point being, if it were hypothetically possible to have included a severability clause in the reconciliation version of the bill, then failure to do so was an oversight/mistake. But if this were not legal, then the explanation for the failure to include such a clause in the final legislation was due to the unanticipated chaos created by Scott Brown’s election that I described earlier. Hope this helps.

I’m posting this here in case some other Freeper can offer a more knowledgeable explanation.


44 posted on 06/25/2012 3:44:40 AM PDT by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

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