Don't Give the Roberts Court the Chance to Kill Health Reform

politics daily ^ | 3/19/10 | Walter Shapiro

[Nachum]

Searching for health care votes with the desperation of...well...a family without medical insurance trying to pay a hospital bill, Nancy Pelosi must find the temptation nearly irresistible. With skittish House Democrats reluctant to ratify the heavy-handed compromises in the Senate health care bill such as the reviled Nebraska-only Cornhusker kickback, Pelosi is beguiled with a parliamentary gambit that would avoid such an awkward vote. Under a congressional sleight-of-hand called "deem and pass," House approval of fixes in the Senate bill (including rescinding the Cornhusker kickback) would be considered identical to actually passing the politically troublesome original Senate legislation. If you are confused at this point -- and who can blame you -- here is a career tip: Do not expect to ever be a congressional parliamentarian.

[rockrr]

I’d like it if we could kill this Obama-nation ourselves and not waste the courts time, but whatever it takes...KILL IT!!!

[RWGinger]

I say if Dems nare willing to ignore all the people then YES bring it on. Let Chief Justice Roberts rule on Piglosi’s “demon pass”

[jakerobins]

IT SHALL NOT PASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hobbes1]

With luck It won’t get that far.

Hopefully the DC Circuit will invalidate the law, and SCOTUS will refuse to hear the Dems appeal of THAT decision.

[OldDeckHand]

There is NO WAY the Roberts court will allow the federal government the power to force citizens to buy something in the private sector, or face imprisonment. I have absolute confidence that at minimum, the personal mandate will be struck as unconstitutional.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

My fear is that Dem lawyers will argue that Medicare and Medicaid have set the precedent for federal government insurance (Yeah I know that Medicaid/Medicare is voluntary but still)...

[Jim Noble]

This “family without health insurance” trying to pay a hospital bill - what does Obamacare do for them?

[OldDeckHand]

"My fear is that Dem lawyers will argue that Medicare and Medicaid have set the precedent for federal government insurance"

Well, that's is probably (and unfortunately) true. But remember, this bill doesn't have a public option. You MUST purchase private insurance, or go to jail. Now, you might qualify for SChiP or Medicare or a subsidy but only if you're "poor". People earning a "livable wage", are going to have purchase insurance.

Although it wasn't really discussed, had the public option been inserted, this would have insulated the Democrats from this challenge. But it wasn't, thankfully.

Some people have pointed out that MA works precisely this way, but hasn't run into any constitutional problems. The difference is the Constitution gives MUCH greater latitude to the states with respect to what it can force its citizens to do.

[JPG]

A belated ‘Thank You’ to Commander Zippy for insulting the SC at the State of the Union address. You po’d the wrong people.

[Lurker]

I will not comply with this monstrosity.

They'll have to kill me. And they'll find that's not an easy task.

[GloriaJane]

"My fear is that Dem lawyers will argue that Medicare and Medicaid have set the precedent for federal government insurance (Yeah I know that Medicaid/Medicare is voluntary but still)..."
Then it should be argued that slavery set a precedent too, but it was shot down. And it should be argued that forcing someone to buy something he doesn't want to buy is in some ways liken to slavery. IMHO

[bigbob]

I don’t know if this guy knows what he’s talking about or not, but there’s an undeniable political risk, not just to Congressmen who will be “slaughtered” in the November mid-term elections, but to “the One”, Obama himself. Assuming this goes forward under “deem and pass”, it will say to all the world that Obama is in fact, a Socialist, and ideologue who will stop at nothing, even if it means trampling on the Constitution, to push through his radical agenda.