SCOTUS Will Likely Strike Down The Obamacare Mandate 9-0, Says This Article

Seeking Alpha ^ | June 24, 2012 | Zvi Bar-Kochba, Esq.

[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

[GlockThe Vote]

My prediction is

Mandate down 6-3 w Sotomayor joining majority

Rest stays 5-4 w Kennedy joining gins, kagam breyer, and soto

[ModelBreaker]

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.

[montag813]

RATs in the comments are not pleased with this guy's description of the mandate as "fascist". I like this response:

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.

[OneWingedShark]

Let’s see if the SCOTUS really does their job.

Given that every citizen apparently lacks standing to challenge Obama on eligibility, I don't think I'll hold my breath.

[xzins]

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.

[privatedrive]

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 HMO’s, 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.

I’m 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.

[nascarnation]

I think Kagan and Ginsberg are in bed together.

A terrifying picture....

[EagleUSA]

“...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!

[chessplayer]

9-0? No way. If it’s struck down, it will be a party-line vote.

[Lionheartusa1]

Post #3

Without the mandate the bill is unfunded ,,,, stick a fork in it .

[Elle Bee]

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.

You're correct. I wish I had any faith in them

.

[HamiltonJay]

I agree, the individual mandate should be struck down by 9-0 ruling, however it could come in as an 8-1 or 7-2 at best.

When your own attny can’t answer the simple brocolli question when appearing before the supreme court to argue your law, you have no chance that that provision will stand.

[OneWingedShark]

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.

They've already shown that they're willing to rewrite law; consider the 2005 Kelo v. New London case.
In this instance the state argued that the "projections" of greater taxation revenue qualified for the "public use" requirement of the exercise of eminent domain despite that the public would not, in general, by using the seized property.

Another instance is Wickard v. Filburn, a root of much of the evil in our justice system, where the court decided that the interstate commerce clause applied to intrastate commerce because it impacted the overall market. (And that reasoning was again used in Raich, which expanded it to things never put on the market because it was illegal to sell.)

[AuH2ORepublican]

That's not Justice Ginsburg.

Here are two pictures of Justice Ginsburg. Actually, one of them may not actually be her, but I'm not sure which one it is:

[Republican Wildcat]

If it gets struck down it would be no better than 5-4. The liberal justices were quite clear where they stood in the oral arguments, especially Kagan...I don’t see it being 9-0.

[arthurus]

Striking down the mandate unanimously gives them cover to leave the rest of the monstrosity intact. Without the mandate the rest of it is every bit as bad Constitutionally and worse in effect as itwill lead even more quickly to Single Payer and the Total Socialist State. I believe the kenyan’s people believe or perhaps already know that it will go that way and are putting the bureaucracy and rules in place even now.

[arthurus]

but the rest of Obamacare will stand or fall by a 5-4 vote.

The Arizona decision makes me think it may well be 6-3 or 7-2 with Roberts acting Earl Warren redux and Kennedy smug in his role as Chief Compromiser. Alito is not reliable either.

[arthurus]

if the Republicans try to preserve or retain ANY of Obama or Romney”care.”

Romney has already said he wants to keep the parts that are good.

[madison10]

They may not care about their next jobs, but they care about their “legacies.” There is NO WAY this is going 9-0. I’m hoping for a 6-3.

[ROTB]

Just pray this commie witch does not “pass away” until after Obama is gone from the White House. God help us.

***

We’re close enough to election time that rubber stamping the next Communist Obama sends up, might not fly with our Senators.