Analysis: Why U.S. high court may uphold healthcare law

Reuters ^ | 03/23/2012 | Joan Biskupic

[rod1]

and with this Al-Reuters report we can all sing......

Prop-aganda, the San Francisco treat.

[aruanan]

Joan Biskupic

I think this is the writer that Mark Levin either last night or night before last totally and completely demolished.

[Jim Noble]

The essential problem, the disconnect, is between those who believe that the body of USSC opinions, taken as a whole, have the effect of an Article V amendment, and those who do not.

Approving Obamacare on original text is impossible. If Wickard and all the rest of the commerce clause jurisprudence is PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, then Obamacare is a lock.

It’s unclear whether or not Kennedy has made up his mind on this fundamental question.

[Pollster1]

Conventional political wisdom holds that the U.S. Supreme Court . . . Obama's healthcare law . . . strike it down on partisan lines . . . deference to Congress . . . might be flawed as a policy matter . . .

(1) I would hope that the Supremes would strike it down on constitutional grounds, not as a partisan decision.

(2) There is no excuse for Supreme Court deference to Congress when the Congress is acting outside the scope of the Constitution.

(3) While I agree that ObamaCare is fatally flawed as a policy matter, I do not want the Court to strike it down for that reason. They should base their ruling only on the Constitution of the United States of America, not on policy, politics, potential benefits of a "good" system of socialized medicine, or popularity.

[elpadre]

When the new Congress convenes in 2013 the first bill interoduced must be for the repeal of Obamacare - same bill - both houses.

[elpadre]

When the new Congress convenes in 2013 the first bill interoduced must be for the repeal of Obamacare - same bill - both houses.

[Jim Noble]

No, an activist judge is one who legislates from the bench and creates law outside the scope of the Constitution. A judge that bases decisions on adherance to the Constitution is not by any means and “activist” judge.

But is a justice who follows 223 years of USSC precedent an activist, or a conservative?

The whole question turns on that.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: When the new Congress convenes in 2013 the first bill interoduced must be for the repeal of Obamacare - same bill - both houses.

This of course assumes the following scenario :

1) A conservative Republican House
2) A conservative republican Senate
3) A Republican president committed to SIGN the bill.

ALL 3 have to exist. Even if the first two were to occur, if Obama still is in the White House, Obamacare will still be the law (assuming the SCOTUS does not declare the mandate unconstitutional ).

BIG, TALL HURDLE to jump, which all started in 2006 and culminated in 2008.

[loveliberty2]

Following up on my previous post, participants on this thread might also appreciate this article on Wallbuilders.com

[Georgia Girl 2]

“I wasn’t aware SCOTUS was bound by lower-court rulings”

Yeh, they’re not. Mark Levin was talking about this on his show last night. He said that one of these so called conservative appointed lower court judges who flipped after being appointed issued a totally convoluted decision and he was taking it apart while I was driving home last night. I only heard a part of it but I wouldn’t put much weight on this article. Chances are the SCOTUS will strike down the individual mandate 5-4 and leave the Congress to decide how much of the rest of it to dismantle. Thats what Levin thinks and I tend to agree.

[iceskater]

I don’t know for sure, but there is this vague thought in the back of my mind that if the SCOTUS is tied, then the law stands.

[buckalfa]

"--e still have Anthony Kennedy to reckon with. He’s the man who will eventually be the tie breaker ( if any )/"

I fear that the "if any" part of your statement will be more appropriate. In my opinion, only Justice Thomas is certain to vote not to uphold the law. Roberts,Alito, and even Scalia could waiver.

[albionin]

Here’s a thought: Why don’t you wait till the news happens to report on it? This constant speculation and having “experts” analyse future events is getting old.

[elpadre]

we we can’t pull this off, shame on us!!

[Buckeye McFrog]

if SCOTUS upholds this piece of Shiite, the Republicans should introduce a bill the next day requiring every American to purchase a subscription to Rush 24/7

[docnakona]

I have read probably a dozen articles this week handicapping how the SCOTUS will break on Obamcare. Each one starts out with the premise that “of course the 4 liberal justices will vote to uphold the law; the only question is which Republican justice might break from the pack”.

How is that the MSM is so uncritical of the fact that the liberals will vote en bloc? Are they implying that they have no ability to critical reason? That says a whole lot about the intellectual integrity of the liberal mind.

I agree that Obama’s own appointees are in the bag. But I will hold out hope one more time that the older LIBERALS will actually uphold the true purpose of that title. Keep in mind that Obama’s administration has suffered two recent 9-0 defeats just this year (EPA and the ministerial exception cases).

Here’s my prediction (but I would request reasonably longshot odds).... I’ll predict that SCOTUS declares Obamacare UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a 7-2 vote!

[Sacajaweau]

If Kagan recuses herself, it could end in a tie. If that becomes the case, I believe the lower court decision rules.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.