However, this Obamination will be the final nail in the coffin.
Posted on 03/23/2012 6:51:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I wasn't aware SCOTUS was bound by lower-court rulings.
"Across the ideological spectrum" is usually lib-talk for people ranging from liberals to down-right communists.
Reuters.
‘Nuff said.
Remember, they believe in global warming, too.
“While they wrote that the healthcare law might be flawed as a policy matter, they said decisions on how to reform the system were best left to legislators”
I think they will say it should be left to legislatures,
AT THE STATE LEVEL.
I have zero confidence in SCOTUS. With Kagan not recusing herself, I think the fix is in.
However, this Obamination will be the final nail in the coffin.
RE: I wasn’t aware SCOTUS was bound by lower-court rulings.
They’re not. What the author seems to be saying is this — If conservative lower court judges can vote in favor of Obamacare, who’s to say that conservative justices in the SCOTUS won’t as well?
And oh yeah — we still have Anthony Kennedy to reckon with. He’s the man who will eventually be the tie breaker ( if any ). Isn’t it chilling to think that the decision affecting the future of this country hinges on what side of the bed he wakes up on in the morning?
Here are a few ideas for demonstration posters:
Obama”care” was robo-signed by Congress, and is therefore illegal.
Obama”care” was 2700 pages long, but is still being written, but not by Congress: witness the forced contraception coverage recently.
Obama”care” has caused “The Catholic Spring.”
Obama”care” reduces competition, and therefore is illegal by the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law.
Obama”care” is designed to be a US Federal Government monopoly, with no competition.
Obama”care” also is illegal according to the US Constitution, because it violates our freedom of choice.
Will THE NINE SUPREMES notice any of these three violations? I seriously doubt it.
Impeached Bill Clinton proved that the US President is above US Federal Law, so anything that the President wants he gets, regardless of the Federal Laws that he has violated.
I’ve heard concerns though regarding Scalia with his concurring opinion in the Gonzales v. Raich case.
Since when SCOTUS discussed budgets? THis is not their arena of expertise. This SCOTUS fairness for this or that is absolutely ridiculous fantasy. Let us stick to justice for taxpayers and representations of various branches, keeping them in line.
What is next? Free cocaine for FLuke?
Exactly. It would be difficult to write a more biased article and still hope to pass it off as analysis.
Headline: U.S. high court may uphold healthcare law
Reuter-reckoning: 'Cause we found some guys who shoulda hated it but didnt stop it.
For all intents and purposes, Obamacare will be the final bullet to the back of withered and declining America's head.... ending all doubt.
f they uphold the law it will be for one reason:
Racism - They don’t want to slap a black president down and be accused of being racists.
And that is exactly what would happen.
Yes... very true.
Congress has the power to tax to provide for the general welfare. That's constitutional.
The "necessary" clause reads:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
So, in my mind the entire issue stem over whether or not they used their taxing power to provide for the general welfare. They didn't. They said instead: "Individuals must buy XYZ policy." They mandated a behavior.
Wiehl's argument is that somehow it was necessary for Congress to "mandate" this behavior rather than to pay for it with taxes.
I don't buy it. Congress was not legally prevented in any actual fashion from using a tax avenue to accomplish that objective of covering the uncovered via national health insurance.
"By contrast, three conservative judges who rejected the law took what some [liberal] critics said was a more activist approach [Now coming from a liberal media source, that's funny, right there] and said they were compelled to strike down the law because it exceeded congressional power." [...as defined in the Constitution. Yes - that's exactly when judges should step in and act.]
Time for the instructions in the Declaration of Independence to be dusted off and followed.
If Obamacare and the individual mandate is held to be Constitutional, it will be the Dred Scott decision of our time.
And you know how that turned out.
Moreover IF they do so to AVOID controversy then we are long past dead. This idiot leftist thinks that judges only care about politics. Those on the court who care about the law had best act like 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.