Posted on 03/02/2020 8:14:32 AM PST by Olog-hai
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide a lawsuit that threatens the Obama-era health care law, but the decision is not likely until after the 2020 election.
The court said it would hear an appeal by 20 mainly Democratic states of a lower-court ruling that declared part of the statute unconstitutional and cast a cloud over the rest.
Defenders of the Affordable Care Act argued that the issues raised by the case are too important to let the litigation drag on for months or years in lower courts and that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans erred when it struck down the health laws now toothless requirement that Americans have health insurance.
The case will be the third major Supreme Court battle over the law popularly known as Obamacare since its passage in 2010. The court has twice upheld the heart of the law, with Chief Justice John Roberts memorably siding with the courts liberals in 2012, amid President Barack Obamas reelection campaign. The majority that upheld the law twice remains on the court, Roberts and the four liberal justices.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
If (and a big if) RBG is no longer a Supreme Court Justice and the third Trump justice is in her place, I wonder what would John Roberts opinion be? Would he still try to save Obamacare and be in the losing minority position or try to join the majority so he could write the opinion?
“If the statute is allowed to remain as originally written the US will have single payer government health care. That is what the insurance companies want. “
LOL! Why would insurance companies want something that would put them out of business!
Good question.
Although if one pries away a few layers of the health insurance industry, they may find that the owners (shareholders) are not the same people as those that run the various companies. If the government promises the handful of elite controllers of said companies a golden opportunity, they may well defy the shareholders (those millions of us that own shares outright or through mutual funds in our investments and 401K plans) and push forward with the self-enriching scheme to liquidate their companies in favor of the spoils of government largess.
How many of these jack wagons actually vote democrat? You can be voting for democrats if you prefer freedom and free enterprise.
“Good question. “
Wrong answer.
Correction: You can NOT be voting for democrats if you prefer freedom and free enterprise.
Oh, for sure.
It won’t put them out of business. You can be sure they will find a way to keep a hand in. One way is by pushing to allow a secondary private supplemental insurance market. Several proposed plans call for such policies to be permitted.
It won’t put them out of business. Anymore than Medicare has put them out of business. I don’t think insurance companies figured on so many people simple opting for a penalty rather than purchasing mandated coverage.
“You can be sure they will find a way to keep a hand in.”
Close. There would have been no Obamacare except the dems went to the insurance companies to help write the rules.
Standard Democrap Operating Procedure.
Roberts name appears to be on a flight log to a certain Island. If the image of it was not fake. There is no question that the deep state has something really bad on Roberts.
With that in mind, I posit the following: "Why push this case off until after the election?"
It's my opinion that Roberts is doing the only thing an honorable man who is compromised can do, which is: to delay the case on the docket and hope that another Rat Supreme bites the dust so his vote won't tip the balance this time.
Just a theory of mine, that's all.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponents Argument
Patriots are reminded that several generations of pre-FDR era, state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices had used healthcare as an example in some case opinions to clarify the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, the misguided Roberts Court seemingly ignoring these clarifications imo.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]. Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass. Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
"Obviously, direct control of medical practice [emphases added] in the states is beyond the power of the federal government. Linder v. United States, 1925.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, regarding the question of the constitutionality of the so-called Obamacare insurance mandate, Supreme Court clarification of the fed's constitutionally limited powers had also included the case decision that insurance is a contract, not commerce, insurance policies therefore out of the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, regardless if buyer and seller are domiciled in different states.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss. Paul v. Virginia (Paul), 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
Note that Paul v. Virginia was eventually overturned by United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n (South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n).
H O W E V E R
A few years before FDR's renegade Court overturned Paul, state sovereignty-ignoring activist majority justices had effectively scandalously repealed the 10th Amendment in Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard) imo.
More specifically, using inappropriate words like concept and implicit, the excerpt below from Wickard shows what was left of the defense of 10th Amendment (10A)-protected state sovereignty by the last of state sovereignty-respecting majority justices in United States v. Butler, FDRs state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices later blatantly ignoring the reasonable Butler interpretation of 10A when they scandalously decided Wickard in Congresss favor imo.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
Getting back to Paul v. Virginia, the corrupt Court's politically correct repeal of 10A in Wickard gave it the "license" to overturn Paul in South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n imo.
Finally, Supreme Court clarifications that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to dictate policy, regulate, tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate healthcare is further evidenced by the following.
Speaker Pelosi seemingly took advantage of the scandalous, politically correct repeal of 10A by FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices. This is evidenced by her wrongful ignoring of a repeatedly introduced resolution to propose a healthcare amendment to the Constitution to the states for ratification before irresponsibly ramming Obamacare through the House imo.
Not only did Pelosi scandalously ignore the resolution for a healthcare amendment to the Constitution, but she also wrongly ignored the will of the Article V state supermajority by doing so.
Remember in November!
MAGA, now KAGA! (Keep America Great Always!)
Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA will effectively give fast-working Trump a third term in office imo.
Ahh, sweet dreams.
Yea, You need a certain amount of Senate votes
Just like IMPEACHMENT
When we replace RBG with Amy Coney Barrett, we'll just give Democrats Merrick Garland if they vote yes on getting rid of Roberts!
Gotta teach these RINO's a lesson!
Thanks.
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.