Replies

I'm thinking a 5 to 4 decision. I'd like to think Obamacare goes too far for even the likes of Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan, but it wouldn't surprise me to see them say government can force citizens to participate in commerce. Didn't Kagan evade a question about whether government could force someone to eat healthy during her nomination? I'm for impeaching any of them that uphold the individual mandate. There has to be some sort of punishment for justices that make such egregious rulings, but I doubt more than even a few Republicans would be willing to do it.

Here is the sad part about the mandate...if you think it’s ethical and legal to make a guy buy health insurance, then the same legislative process could require every American citizen to own and carry a weapon. Naturally, that would upset a number of folks quickly...but it’s the same logic.

And I will point this out...all European countries have an opt-out deal on their national health insurance deal. Typically, you have to make more than $60k (roughly) and you arrange for your own situation. Most countries also allow a gov’t employee opt-out....like firemen or police...to arrange their own situation. Anyone who says European countries require everyone to play as part of the system....is absolutely incorrect (I know because I spent fifteen years of my life in Europe).

It will be 8-1 or 7-2 in favor of upholding ObamaCare imo. I can't see any of the 4 liberals voting to strike it down. Not only are they apologists for the idea that people have a right to health care, but they also think that the federal government has the right to regulate almost anything under the Commerce Clause. Roberts and Alito are not true conservatives in the mold of Clarence Thomas, and Justice Scalia has shown himself more than willing to respect stare decisis, even when it is clearly incorrect. The Commerce Clause has been dead for more than 65 years. The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the federal government has the authority under the Commerce Clause to step into California and arrest medical marijuana patients, even though it is legal under state law.

I'm curious as to why you think them upholding ObamaCare would be such an egregious ruling. If they do so, it will merely be another nail in the coffin of the Commerce Clause, but hardly the first. The Supreme Court has only struck down Commerce Clause legislation twice in the past 65 years, and ObamaCare is Commerce Clause legislation. Now if you're saying that upholding ObamaCare would be egregious because the ruling would have profound negative impacts on our health care system then I agree with you, but I find the ObamaCare legislation to be equally as offensive as most of the unconstitutional legislation they have upheld in past years.

By the way, I absolutely agree with you that the very idea of the government forcing someone to buy a good from a private company is repugnant. I hope that if the Supreme Court does uphold the legislation, that one impact if that will be a recognition that we need more justices on the Court that actually understand the federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers. By my count, we have one (Justice Thomas). The other 8 are Beltway tools.

I'm for impeaching any of them that uphold the individual mandate.

There should be a lot more impeachments. The standard for relieving judges of duty is much lower than the elected president. This was intentionally done because they were not elected and served for life. As the Constitution states

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour

Making blatantly unconstitutional decisions is outside the boundaries of "good Behaviour."