Skip to comments.SCOTUS Will Likely Strike Down The Obamacare Mandate 9-0, Says This Article
Posted on 06/26/2012 8:28:01 AM PDT by doubledeuceswayze
I believe the mandate at the core of the proposed laws, requiring Americans to purchase health insurance or suffer a penalty shall be struck down. Additionally, I believe that it is possible that the Supreme Court vote against the mandate will be unanimous.
The mandate at the center of this current scheme is its Achilles heel, and this mandate is particularly peculiar in that the concept should be contrary to both strict textualist and progressive liberal ideologies. In essence, requiring a person to buy a service from another person or a private corporation without having first actively chosen to engage in some risky activity, and that the failure to do so would be in violation of a law, is a concept few if any Supreme Court Justices are likely to support.
The article is here
(Excerpt) Read more at seekingalpha.com ...
9-0?! I have my doubts. Kagan and Sont are evil Marxists working directly for the kenyan. Is this to throw us off the trail?
Not good enough. The entire bill should be struck down.
Ginsberg has said they were sharply divided.
Remember too, that the severability clause was REMOVED from the final law, and therefore if the mandate goes down, so should the entire horrid piece of legislation.
Let’s see if the SCOTUS really does their job.
Sorry, but this is wishful thinking of the worst kind. There’s a greater likelihood that SCOTUS would uphold the mandate than vote against it unanimously. Besides, all the people who know these things say that Ginsberg wrote the dissent. If there’s a dissent, it isn’t unanimous.
I agree and said it way before this...It will be a 9-0 strike out.
The individual mandate was inserted into law in order to have a ghost of a chance to fund the great beast that is O’Care.
Without the mandate, the beast becomes a massive contributor to national debt year after year. It must either be killed, or it will kill us all.
Ginsberg has said they were sharply divided....
Just pray this commie witch does not “pass away” until after Obama is gone from the White House. God help us.
Obamacare is not going anywhere ,it will stick around like those burps from a forced meal of kippers
I also think the mandate will be struck down 9-0, but the rest of Obamacare will stand or fall by a 5-4 vote.
Nancy P former Speaker of the House, who has told us that she is a constitutional scholar (just like our Dear Leader) has said that Congress can pass this law and there is no problem with it.
She couldn't be wrong about such things. I mean she told us she knew what she was doing and that Congress needed to pass the law for them and us to find out what was in it. Surely the leaders of the Democratic Party and their flacks knew what they were doing.
If they didn't then....what else might they have not gotten right.....
A 9-0 unanimous vote would be make it interesting for the Dem leadership to explain. I doubt that they could spin this as George Bush appointed Neo-con judges destroying the will of the people, like they were planning.
All leftwingtards of all kinds PREFER fascist methods.
From their keyboard to God’s ears.
The decision to allow the AZ police to check the immigration status of anyone who comes in contact with the law, was unanimous. The rest of the law recieved different levels of dissent. Scalia, supported letting the whole law stand.
For almost 80 years we have been saddled with the failed Keynesian Economic System. It has bankrupted the US Federal Government.
The derivatives of the WW2 Wage and Price Control Dictates are as follows: Medicare, Medicaid, Romneycare and Obamacare.
All of these vote-buying gimmicks are funded by debt created by the failed Keynesian Economic System.
Currently this Debt is charged to those who cannot vote: our Grandchildrens future descendants.
There will be additional calls for State Constitutional Conventions if the Republicans try to preserve or retain ANY of Obama or Romneycare.
Obamacare is the Death Knell for America. It must be ABOLISHED FOREVER if America is to survive.
If Obamacare does survive, then I favor Regional Areas of the former United States of America. I think the States that the XL Pipeline will run through makes excellent sense for one Region, called The Texas Region. The Mississippi Region would be those States that the Mississippi River runs through. Pacific and Atlantic Regions are obvious, as are the Rocky Mountain States.
In this way people could vote with their feet and move to a greater or lesser degree of personal Liberty.
The Great Experiment of forcing the United States of America back into the European Feudal System began with FDRs Social Security System and will end with Obamacare.
No need for armed conflict, as we have already tried that with our bloody Civil War.
Just hold State Constitutional Conventions, split up the former USA into multi State Regions, and hold Fourth of July Remember When Days once a year, as we thank our lucky Stars that we in NO WAY are like Europe.
Although unlikely they can be impeached.
If SCOTUS upholds 0bamacare but strikes the Mandate they are WRITING LAW not ruling on the law because they’ll be adding a severability clause. Anything other than a total strike down is unacceptable because the Mandate is absolutely unconstitutional.
Outstanding article. Well-written and boldly argued. Let’s hope it happens!
Ginsberg said ‘people who talk don’t know’. She talked so she doesn’t know!
I say again since it bears repeating that there actually is need for medical reform in this country... it’s just that the reforms we actually need, starting with major kinds of tort reform, do not resemble obungacare at all. The four or five things we need are things which TR called “Trust Busting”, and would be simple and inexpensive to implement.
It's tough to predict.
Based on the baby splitting of the AZ case, there's going to be all sorts of paper flying out on Thursday.
Nice try nOOb.
Excerpting your own article?
LOL. I’m not even sure Kennedy will vote to strike down the mandate. His judicial philosophy is psycho-social neo Kennedyism.
Go easy on him. It's a good piece. Sometimes it takes noobs time to learn the ropes. I've been there (14 years ago, anyway, LOL).
The logic may apply to Sotomayer, but I think Kagan and Ginsberg are in bed together.
It surely is, as the author's pseudonym implies (and if it isn't, you should be very wary of what he says). He advocates Federal "regulation" of healthcare, which IS fascist and still unconstitutional.
Anybody who would take that name as a pseudonym is somebody you should scrutinize very carefully. Shimon bar Kochba claimed to be Messiah. He started a revolt against the Romans that that forced Israel into exile for nearly 2000 years and cost over 150,000 Jews their lives. In fact, it was the refusal of Jewish Christians to join in that revolt that deepened the already broken bonds between those two groups first shattered in the rebellion that cost Israel the Temple in 70CE. Shabbatai Zevi (or Tsvi if you like) was ANOTHER claimant to Messiah (the last... so far), who was gathering over a million Jews to retake the Holy Land back in the late 1600s. He was nabbed by the sultan in Istanbul and "converted" to Islam at the point of a sword. The young Turks who foisted the Armenian genocide were his direct ideological descendants (as was Kemal Ataturk BTW).
“...but I think Kagan and Ginsberg are in bed together.”
Now, that is one ugly thought. :p
That is one butt ugly mental picture right there.
Scotus showed yesterday they are not prepared to do their job. They piece-mealed the Arizona decision so they could give a little to everyone. They are using a purely political template. Why say this? Because there is no sane judge who'd read the Constitution to say that a state law cannot be enacted because it violates a president's decision to implement it.
IOW, if it had been a conservative president unconcerned with his direction being mirrored by a state law, then that Az law would have been constitutional. The ruling yesterday was that it's unconstitutional to violate a chief executive's whim. That's insane....as Scalia said, it's "mind-boggling".
What does this mean? It means they'll put a political template on the ObamaCare decision and give everyone a little bit of what they want. (And they'll turn a blind eye to any whim on the part of the president to fund it via executive redistribution of funds.)
5-4 will be fine with me.
They will most likely leave the 26-year old "kid" and pre-existing condition requirement on the books, which will add to the misery to insurers that this author details.
If Ginsberg is writing the dissent and Roberts the majority opinion,if that’s true, then we can be confident that the individual mandate, at the very least, is toast. Do you have a source on this (Ginsberg writing for the minority)?
My prediction is
Mandate down 6-3 w Sotomayor joining majority
Rest stays 5-4 w Kennedy joining gins, kagam breyer, and soto
LOL. Kagan was an architect of the plan. So the article requires she have been thinking: “I’ll design a fascist plan with an individual mandate.”
I don’t know. But that seems like a less likely scenaraio than “Whoppee! We finally have total control over life and death. It sure took a long time for us to get those dolts in flyover country out of the way. But all’s well that ends well. We know what’s best for them and in the end, they will thank us for being so wise and generous.”
Even when they are objectively evil, most progressives don’t think of themselves as evil.
I think you do not understand what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means. But even if it meant what you are saying it means, or think it should mean, wouldn't you agree that there are many ways to improve life beyond medicine, including food, shelter, clothing, plumbing, electricity, and so on.
In fact, each of those things is probably more important to your survival. So, wouldn't it make sense to be guaranteeing people things like clothing, food and electricity too, and probably even before the right to medical procedures and such?
Equal access to care has nothing to do with insurance. You are injecting this need to insure into a care scenario where you think it should be nationalized. If it is nationalized, insurance companies must be either phased out or primarily paid for from the federal government. The government cannot guarantee equal access through forced purchasing of insurance. The only constitutional way the government could do it is though a system where it is paid for through tax revenues.
Given that every citizen apparently lacks standing to challenge Obama on eligibility, I don't think I'll hold my breath.
I now agree with you. I thought last week that the whole thing would go down 5-4 on both mandate and severability.
Now that Roberts has shown himself not to be a constructionist, it’s anyone’s guess. Who knows what Kennedy’s philosophy is????
I think both he and Roberts have shown themselves to be “politicists” in their interpretation.
The WORST outcome would be to strike down the individual mandate but allow the rest. Individuals would be able to not buy insurance until they needed it (got sick). Insurance costs would multiply exponentially, and employers would be forced to stop providing insurance, or go broke themselves.
Since insurance companies would not be allowed to turn these sick people away (pre-existing conditions), the companies would quickly go bankrupt.
With no health insurance companies, and no HMOs, only the very rich would be able to afford healthcare.
The result would be TOTAL CHAOS chaos for US healthcare. The only remedy would then be total government takeover, massive tax hikes, and ultimately, national economic ruin.
Im confident that the court realizes this and will strike down the whole thing as unconstitutional.
Then we can implement some common sense incremental healthcare and insurance improvements, such as portability and tort reform.
A terrifying picture....
“...Scotus showed yesterday they are not prepared to do their job. They piece-mealed the Arizona decision so they could give a little to everyone...”
And now look at what Obama, et al, are doing to Arizona as a state. What has happened to justice and accountability in the US government? Where is the Congress on Obama? This reprobate is out of control. This is serious!
9-0? No way. If it’s struck down, it will be a party-line vote.
Without the mandate the bill is unfunded ,,,, stick a fork in 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.