Left panic stricken as Scalia says Obamacare individual mandate Constitutionally "not proper"

Coach is Right ^ | 3/28/2012 | Doug Book

[Oldpuppymax]

In Tuesday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General and chief ObamaCare advocate Donald Verrilli was presented with a substantial portion of his own posterior by Justice Antonin Scalia.

The summary execution began when Verrilli made the extraordinary mistake of schooling the Court on the proper meaning of its own decisions.

“No it didn’t,” said Scalia to the stunned Solicitor General in reference to his errant references to the significance of previous cases.

And what followed was a merciless barrage of facts exposing the overreach of the individual mandate, ObamaCare’s method of creating “fairness in healthcare” by making those who do not want to purchase insurance buy it anyway or suffer a penalty.

When US District Judge Roger Vinson found ObamaCare unconstitutional in 2011 he wrote simply “If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce…it would be ‘difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power,’ and we would have a Constitution in name only.” (1)

And Scalia not only repeated Vinson’s skepticism of Congress’ immediate use of the commerce clause power, he drove directly to the heart of Verrilli’s contention that the federal government has the absolute authority to impose the individual mandate because it is “necessary and proper” to the success of ObamaCare itself.

“In addition to being necessary, it has to be proper,” said Scalia of the federal government’s unprecedented decision to force unwilling participants into the insurance market and fine...

[Peter from Rutland]

It looks like it’s going to be a 5-4 vote to strike down the ENTIRE law.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story

[FreeAtlanta]

We have been so let down so many times by the Supreme Court, I am a afraid to get excited.

The best possible solution is to strike down the whole 2,000 plus pages law.

[freedumb2003]

>>It looks like it’s going to be a 5-4 vote to strike down the ENTIRE law.<<

From your keyboard to God’s screen...

[driftdiver]

So we’re depending on the Federal Govt to put limits on itself?

[treetopsandroofs]

I’ll bet there’s some petition underway already asking for the messiah to bypass/ignore the SCOTUS.

[treetopsandroofs]

In that case, the minority opinion should be interesting reading.

[freedumb2003]

>>So we’re depending on the Federal Govt to put limits on itself?<<

Sadly, we have to. Other examples of already-inculcated overreach (all of which should be reexamind and, hopefully, eliminated):

Medicare
Social Security
DOE
Federal War on Drugs
Patriot Act

I am sure between all of us we could come up with 100s of similar examples.

I hope this ruling is used to get the ball rolling on scaling the Federal Gummint back to what the Constitution says it is supposed to be.

[so_real]

Sad that 4 on the bench are likely capable of squinting their eyes and (pretending they can) see this monstrosity as Constitutional from our Founders' perspective. Even more sad that 2 of those 4 were put on the bench by an usurper to the Executive Office that has no authority given his foreign lineage to occupy the seat he holds.

[Huskrrrr]

Anybody find a “last days of Hitler” parody for Obamacare?

[Hodar]

It looks like it’s going to be a 5-4 vote to strike down the ENTIRE law.

And I would suggest impeachment and removal of the 4 dissenting; because this is in direct violation of the Oath of Office they have taken. With televised recordings, and innumerable witnesses - each voluntarily and without reservation SWORE to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, without reservation and of their own free will. It's pretty clear that any ruling contrary to defending the US Constitution is a voilation of their duty - and should have consequences.

[FreeAtlanta]

I wonder if the economy will take off, if the court strikes this down? How soon will companies start hiring like crazy?

[pogo101]

I agree. And (without meaning to ill-judge you or anyone else), I rarely, rarely pray for this or that temporal political outcome. But I prayed for Kerry’s defeat in 2004 and I’ll pray again for this horror of a law to be rejected.

[cookcounty]

"So we’re depending on the Federal Govt to put limits on itself?"

We may as well have a unitary government if "Federal" has no meaning. What's a federal system for? So we can each design our own flag?

[DonaldC]

Business would like to see single payer to get themselves out of it. While they may be joyed that obamacare is tossed, the current system is a burden to them. I don’t see that this alone will cause a hiring boom.

[Roccus]

So we’re depending on the Federal Govt to put limits on itself?

...and that works so well. Just look at the debt ceiling(s)

[dirtboy]

And I would suggest impeachment and removal of the 4 dissenting

So tell us how we are going to get a 2/3rds vote for removal in the Senate?

[RavenLooneyToon]

The Communists are very good at planning each move, they have been at it for over sixty years, to bury us. They are so close to succeeding. Let's look at this:
Obamma publicly insults the SCOTUS.
Obamma appoints communist judge.
Obammacare get’s challenged and rejected by SCOTUS.
Obamma propaganda machine tells populaces that the SCOTUS rejected Obammacare, not on grounds, but in spiteful revenge.
Obamma’s OWS crowd demand “justice”.
Riots begin, marshal law declared.
Checkmate-Kruschev.

[Marathoner]

It looks like it’s going to be a 5-4 vote to strike down the ENTIRE law.

Gawd I hope so. But do you remember how apes##t the left went over the 5-4 Bush v Gore decision?

[SMARTY]

I can't believe that ‘not proper’ is the strongest criticism that an intelligent adult (in the business of the LAW) could come up with!!

In fact, the law is so clear on what may and may not be done, that I don't know why the thing got as far as it did in the first place.

From the day that monstrous fraud on the American public was proposed, we should have taken the word ‘impossible’ out of every Dictionary of the English language!!