Skip to comments.
Health reform lawsuit appears headed for Supreme Court
The Politico ^
| 09-26-11
| JENNIFER HABERKORN
Posted on 09/26/2011 4:22:25 PM PDT by Lazlo in PA
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
To: Lazlo in PA
How much you want to bet the Marymacha (Kagin)
will not recluse herself?
2
posted on
09/26/2011 4:27:44 PM PDT
by
Bibman
(DC politicians are all "Financial Pedophile's")
To: Lazlo in PA
The move puts the Supreme Court in the difficult position of having to decide whether to take the highly politically charged case in the middle of the presidential election.
After reflecting on this line a bit, it really bothers me. Why in the world should the SC care about elections? This should be strictly about the law and the Constitutionality of it. What a bunch of BS.
3
posted on
09/26/2011 4:30:28 PM PDT
by
Lazlo in PA
(Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
To: Lazlo in PA; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; xzins
This confirms what I had already concluded: That the government is confident that its going to prevail in the Supreme Court and would like to have a decision sooner rather than later, Dellinger told POLITICO. Or it could be that once the rest of the law was severed from the personal mandate they figure they are in a no lose situation. If the personal mandate is ruled unconstitutional then the rest of the law will bankrupt health insurers and the govt will run health care. If the mandate is upheld it will just take a little longer to bankrupt the insurers.
4
posted on
09/26/2011 4:33:01 PM PDT
by
wmfights
(If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
To: Lazlo in PA
What if they decide to not hear the case? Wouldn’t Bambi-care be DOA?
5
posted on
09/26/2011 4:36:00 PM PDT
by
WackySam
(Obama got Osama just like Nixon landed on the moon.)
Comment #6 Removed by Moderator
To: wmfights
"If the personal mandate is ruled unconstitutional then the rest of the law will bankrupt health insurers and the govt will run health care.".Precisely, and that will open the door for the single payer system Obama touted from the beginning.
To: Lazlo in PA
It’ll all come down to Justice Anthony Kennedy. Hell of a system of government we’ve got.
8
posted on
09/26/2011 4:38:35 PM PDT
by
Huck
(But the glass IS half-empty!)
To: Lazlo in PA
Why in the world should the SC care about elections? Maybe we should ask President Gore that question.
;)
9
posted on
09/26/2011 4:38:35 PM PDT
by
Michael.SF.
(When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.)
To: Bibman
What do you think would happen if the American people refuse to get it?
Could we call it “Obamacare Spring”?
10
posted on
09/26/2011 4:40:08 PM PDT
by
Bibman
(DC politicians are all "Financial Pedophile's")
To: Bibman
What do you think would happen if the American people refuse to get it? It will accelerate the demise of the insurers. If you don't get health insurance you will be subject to a fine which is about half of what the actual insurance would cost. However, if you get sick insurers can not deny coverage, so if you buy a policy in the emergency room the insurer will have to pay the entire bill.
It's not hard to see what a lot of people will do.
11
posted on
09/26/2011 4:45:35 PM PDT
by
wmfights
(If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
To: Lazlo in PA
Bingo! I had the same reaction when I read that line. Why in the world would SCOTUS be concerned about the pending election?
There’s no mapping the progressives’ mental madness...
12
posted on
09/26/2011 4:46:23 PM PDT
by
PubliusMM
(RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
To: wmfights
The personal mandate cannot be separated from the rest of the bill—when Obamacare was “deemed” passed during reconciliation they had to leave out the severability clause as that would have required a return to the mark-up process and “ahem” more floor votes and as you know,the new RINO from MA had just arrived.
So if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional,the whole thing collapses UNLESS the SCOTUS violates the constitution ITSELF and allows the mandate to be seperated from the rest of the law—but that would be blatant legislating from the bench.
13
posted on
09/26/2011 4:49:11 PM PDT
by
Happy Rain
("Yer it!")
To: Lazlo in PA
I think the Obama crew would rather have the USSC rule against the personal mandate than to be faced with charges late in the election season that they are dragging this out.
I think they know they are going to lose and want to get it over with.
14
posted on
09/26/2011 4:49:17 PM PDT
by
Mariner
(War Criminal #18)
To: Lazlo in PA
I think Kagan will be recused from the case so look
for them to try to recuse Thomas for his what his wife
is doing.
15
posted on
09/26/2011 4:53:59 PM PDT
by
Slambat
(The right to keep and bear arms. Anything one man can carry, drive or pull.)
To: Happy Rain; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; xzins
So if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional,the whole thing collapses UNLESS the SCOTUS violates the constitution ITSELF and allows the mandate to be seperated from the rest of the lawbut that would be blatant legislating from the bench. The first judge ruled the entire law unconstitutional, but the 3 judge panel severed the rest of the law from the personal mandate. If the SCOTUS only rules on the personal mandate we may have a big problem.
I pinged a couple lawyers I rely on.
16
posted on
09/26/2011 4:56:16 PM PDT
by
wmfights
(If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
To: Slambat
I would HOPE that Roberts tells Kagan to take a hike for the absolute conflict of interests (Sotomayer and Kagan were planted PRECISELY to further Constitution destruction).
17
posted on
09/26/2011 4:58:55 PM PDT
by
traditional1
("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
To: Huck
“Itll all come down to Justice Anthony Kennedy. Hell of a system of government weve got.”
And 0 decides when the case should go to the SOTUS and times it for when HE is ready.
Our Constitution is worth nothing when we have a facsist government.
18
posted on
09/26/2011 5:06:30 PM PDT
by
balls
(0 lies like a Muslim (Google "taqiyya"))
To: Lazlo in PA
Obama’s is playing three level chess here.* He knows the SC will overturn Obamacare, thus removing it as a campaign issue in time for his reelection. (He will lose anyway.)
19
posted on
09/26/2011 5:08:28 PM PDT
by
sportutegrl
(*Extreme sarcasm alert.)
To: wmfights
SCOTUS really needs to hammer this thing. They have a good chance to smack Obozo around here, and really reaffirm concepts of federalism and a limited federal government. If Kennedy thinks the mandate gives Congress unprecedented powers (which it does), I could see them striking down the whole thing.
What worries me is the Roberts approach of judicial modesty.
If it's Unconstitutional then kill it!
I don't want him being modest here any more than I want my Dr. being modest when removing a tumor.
20
posted on
09/26/2011 5:12:24 PM PDT
by
Clump
(the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson