Ping
Dear Lord, may the Judge be correct in his assessment!
And despite all that it will still be a 5-4 decision.
Wouldn’t this be sweet. Especially after the way the justices were attacked by the Kenyan during his SOTU Show.
For a minute there I was totally confused...thinking Janet Napolitano...!?!
The judge is correct. I just pray the Supreme court agrees.
If they do this before the GOP takes back one of the houses of Congress, Obama and Pelosi and Reid will stack the Court.
Or, Stevens retires...
Impeach the punk. Vote out his ‘rat co-conspirators.
One of the worst? Even FDR, on his best court-stacking day, wasn't in the same league as Obama.
If odorkocare is not unconstitutional, then nothing is and the feds have all the power they want. Finding odorkocare constitutional is the end of the Constitution. But then, that is what the fascists want.
BTTT
FWIW
While I sincerely believe that many of the provisions of “Obamacare” will be found to be Unconstitutional, ultimately,..., there is a high probability that the SCOTUS will reject challenges at this time since, the challenges are for PROSPECTIVE DAMAGES...
The problem is that they will not declare the whole bill to be unconstitutional, just the individual mandate and maybe some of the regulations.
Scotus needs to fast-track this issue to the exclusion of all others.
I wish he were right, but it ain’t going to happen.
Napolitano can argue that this un-Constitutional until he is blue in the face, but I am sure he would say the same thing about a number of other cases that were uncomfortably close in the Supreme Court. Look at Keller vs DC (handgun ban), Ricci vs DeStefano (New Haven firefighters) and Citizens United vs FEC.
Fortunately in those cases Anthony Kennedy was a critical swing vote, but he proved that he is in favor of a loose definition of the Commerce Clause in Gonzales vs Raich (California State’s rights to medical marijuana).
Here is Clarence Thomas’ passionate dissent, with all do respect to Napolitano, he has no reason to say that Kennedy has shifted on this epic stance.
“Respondent’s local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce ... among the several States.”
Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.”
“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers — as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause — have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to “appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”
“If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”
The conservatives on the SCOTUS still want to play by the rules when the Marxists are not. I hope they do, but all that will do is inflame the useful idiots.
“The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments,”
Exactly the reason why each state has it’s own Constitution.
Each state is unique in it’s dispensation of resources.
One size of government cannot fit all states equally.
Health care will be struck down. Or else.
This is a no-brainer. The mandate is unconstitutional, along with many of it’s provisions. Barring private banks from issuing student loans is unconstitutional. Exemptions for certain states and not others is unconstitutional. Exempting certain religious groups from this plan is unconstitutional because it’s clearly discriminatory. The list goes on, add to the list, add-on-ers!