Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare

Newsmax ^ | MARCH 25, 2010 | David A. Patten

[RobinMasters]

President Barack Obama is one of the worst presidents ever in terms of respecting constitutional limitations on government, and the states suing the federal government over healthcare reform "have a pretty strong case" and are likely to prevail, according to author and judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella, Napolitano says the president's healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional.

"The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments," Napolitano says. "Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.

[crz]

There are 9 people standing between our liberty and tyranny.

Pray to the Almighty that the judge is right.

[crz]

I am putting it at about 6 to 3. Hopefully. But 5 to 4 is alright. As long as they strike it down.

[southernsunshine]

And despite all that it will still be a 5-4 decision
____________________________________________________________
And that is a sad state of affairs. Those judges have a solemn duty to interpret the Constitution and instead some of them choose to, “legislate from the bench.” Pathetic.

[Frantzie]

Rep. John Boehner of OH said he would DEFUND it on Jan 2011 if we can win the House. We should unless the election is rigged.

DEFUND DEFUND DEFUND and dump the RINOs like McCain.

[Travis McGee]

Our entire future will come down to whether Anthony Kennedy had a good BM that AM.

[Still Thinking]

Economic-based regulation of the private production and use of a fungible product (same thing that happened in Wickard) is not quite the same as regulation of the simple existence of people, unless people are also considered fungible.

To Democrats we are.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[Mariner]

EIGHT YEARS!?!?!?!?!?

I don't think so.

I believe the USSC has the authority to reach down whenever they choose (though it's not considered good form) and decide a case of national import.

Look at the 2000 election and Florida.

[hstacey]

Good question. If you get an answer to these questions would you let me know? Thanks.

[US_MilitaryRules]

The Judge is awesome! Go Judge!

[Hostage]

How can they stack against Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy?

[Still Thinking]

I have an honest question to Freepers here...If the suits filed against Obamacare make it to the SC, what happens to the healthcare industry in the meantime? Dont the suits need to advance thru the regular Federal Court System first? Can leftist Fed judges delay and slow the process intentionally? Couldnt this take a really long time to happen; and by the time the SC rules...the healthcare industry in this country is already destroyed?

At least two of the challenges are being brought by state attorneys general, or groups of them, and I believe state suits against the feds can sometimes (always?) go directly to SCOTUS.

[Frantzie]

So the case in N VA district (rocket docket) filed by VA AG Ken Cuccinelli’s injuction fails in that court it goes to SCOTUS?

Anyone know how long it will take?

[EDINVA]

I thought Janet too but it didn’t fit in the context of the headline. We can hope and pray the judge is right. My sense is, he is. I don’t think so many state AG’s would be filing suit if this were a solid, constitutional piece of legislation.

[Frank_2001]

“For a minute there I was totally confused...thinking Janet Napolitano...!?!”

LOL;)

[HiTech RedNeck]

Even those who think the chances are slim, would rather try it in the hopes their economies won’t be utterly wrecked.

[Slyfox]

How many insurance companies are gonna be history when the health czar decides it to be so?

[mrsixpack36]

Then we better hope the five conservatives on the court last that long and a conservative is elected in 2012. I just don’t believe all 5 will hang on through a 2nd Obama term.

[Hostage]

The McCollum lawsuit (lead suit of 14 states) is in Federal Court first.

This suit is requesting a preliminary injunction of Obama’s law until after the hearing is completed. That means we should be hearing in the next weeks (lawsuit is on the rocket docket per what I have read) about whether court has granted prelim injunction.

If McCollum can get prelim injunction, then Obamacare stops until hearing concluded. Whoever wins first round in federal court, the opposition will same-day appeal to Supreme Court. If Obama loses first round and runs to Supremes, he will ask prelim injunction be removed if it is in force. McCollum will argue for it to be left in effect while Supremes make decision.

If McCollum loses, he will run to Supremes and ask for injunction I believe.

[BOBWADE]

I like the Virgina AG approach. Obamacare is all or nothing. It all stands or it is struck down if any part is unconstitutional. The AG there says that it violates state statute by requiring purchase of insurance which the state law prohibits. The feds will claim authority under the 14 amendment(interstate commerce) but the AG makes clear that there is no commerce, interstate or otherwise if a party chooses not to purchase insurance. That is where the obama’s edict fails the test. How can the law penalize individuals for failing to engage in commerce, then claim they have the authority under “interstate commerce”. It sounds like they want to claim that failing to engage in interstate commerce is within their authority when in fact there has to be interstate commerce for the 14th amendment to apply.