Posted on 06/28/2012 4:15:48 AM PDT by radioone
Today? Oh dear, I’m nervous.
Me too.
Do you support the federal requirement that insurance companies charge you as a part of your insurance premium for the following costs incurred by other policy holders: in vitro fertilization, dependent children 22-26 on parents policies, and sex change surgery?
What’s wrong with Democrats is that they are utterly immoral. Them and this monstrosity law which hopefully will be killed today.
If it is struck down, you will hear the uproar, and the wailing and knashing of teeth, as they realize they won’t be allowed to rob, steal and redistribute. Just ignore it.
You bet. They have no qualms about destroying the lives of millions of future Americans in exchange for their own personal present gain. "Evil" is the only word which fits.
ROBERTS the traitor? Kennedy a good egg now? ROBERTS? Sonofabitch!!
ROBERTS the traitor? Kennedy a good egg now? ROBERTS? Sonofabitch!!
I watch the Dems and they been repeatly warning Roberts to not side with Scalia, Thomas and Alito and it looks like Roberts found his horse’s head in his bed.
—I watch the Dems and they been repeatly warning Roberts to not side with Scalia, Thomas and Alito and it looks like Roberts found his horse’s head in his bed.—
I honestly believe that is what happened here.
I am still shocked, though.
Long ago I read Borks book ‘The Tempting of America’ on court decisions and he explained how if you side with the progressive justices you get heaps of media praise and party invitations, otherwise you get scorn and ridicule.
MSNBC, Obama, congression Dems, etc have been on TV DAILY specifically warning Roberts not to side with the conservative three, especially if it will lead to 5 to 4 decisions.
There are decades of New Deal precedents since FDR that are somewhat consistent with this watered down ‘tax/fine’ ‘mandate’ approach, so I didnt have my hopes up regardless of Republican hype.
Let me shock you, I bet Romney and Boehner secretly wanted the whole bill upheld for purely political reasons. They were scared it would be overturned and the spotlight might point at them.
All the predictions here in comments that the whole bill would be thrown out was massive wishful thinking, it was always down to a single justice, and I swore off wishful thinking in GWB second term.
Prior to this morning I had actually thought the law, specifically the individual mandate would be struck down.
This morning I woke up thinking there was a good chance I might be surprised at the ruling.
With the report the individual mandate had been ruled unconstitutional, I thought we had a victory. I never imagined Roberts would ‘create a tax’ against what Congress had as a single voice claimed they were not doing.
Roberts had every opportunity to study and understand Congress’ intentions here. There was plenty of public evidence that Congress had forcefully denied they were creating a tax.
Roberts should have held them to that. It seems to me that if you are a believer in original intent for some things, you should be in favor of it for other things. Evidently Roberts is quite selective in his belief in ‘Original Intent’.
I confess that there is the possibility that this will actually hurt obama in the election, but time will tell. It is like a complicated chess game and the results of single moves are not always immediately apparent.
Though this is a bit like sacrificing your queen.
There are two reasons I see to have thought this:
1) Wishful thinking, and I got pinged with lots of it here for sure
2) Media/Republicans hype over the justices critical questions on the mandate. This was coming on real strong.
So the 'conventional wisdom' was that the mandate would go. The 'wishful thinking wisdom' was that the whole bill would go.
The unpopular personal ‘mandate/fine/tax’ in the bill was so watered down it was a joke, and the theory was it would bring the whole bill down. The Federal government has been using the tax code to control us for decades, and if you dont pay your income tax you can go to jail or have property seized, unlike this joke 'mandate'.
While the Dems are celebrating and Republicans are commiserating all based on hyped ‘expectations’, we should learn exactly what was thrown out of the bill and how it affects it.
—...we should learn exactly what was thrown out of the bill and how it affects it.—
So, what WAS thrown out?
FNC reported that they threw out some of the state mandates that punished states for refusing to expand medicaid to lots more people, which would have bankrupted them. So if this is true, then it is GOOD news.
Evidently the bill had stated that if states wouldn’t expand their Medicaid programs to cover massive numbers of new people, the federal government could/would cut off all Medicaid funding to the state.
The SCOTUS nixed that.
—So if this is true, then it is GOOD news.—
And the quotes below, from this site are also good news:
“The court ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional under the Constitution’s commerce clause, but it can stay as part of Congress’s power under a taxing clause. The court said that the government will be allowed to tax people for not having health insurance. “
“It actually settles nothing. By shifting the debate to the tax arena, and with a four-justice dissent, the decision guarantees only that the broader fight over a suitable national health policy will continue,” said Richard Saltman, a professor at the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University. “In effect, the court decided this was too hot to handle. The focus will (has already) shift back to the political arena, where a deeply divided electorate will have to decide which policy path they want the country to pursue.”
This is not being reported accurately according to the quotes above. It means they DID strike down the mandate but said that if they want to levy a tax, that’s ok. If true, good luck with that. ;-)
Mandate, Tax, what’s the difference? If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Actually SoL, if you think about it, the Commerce Clause validity was struck down. I don’t think it was unreasonable to think that it would be.
Your list of reasons should have included a number 3) It is reasonable to think the individual mandate should fail, because the claim involving the Commerce Clause could not stand SCOTUS scrutiny.
I don’t think very many reasonable people actually saw the Hail Mary “Tax Claim” to be substantive. I am astounded that Roberts bought off on it. Simply amazing...
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.