FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 11/14/2011 7:15:57 AM PST by Second Amendment First
Headline only
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Does that mean the 29 states?
According to Fox, a legal aide to Kennedy thinks that he will rule in favor of Obamacare.
According to Fox, a legal aide to Kennedy thinks that he will rule in favor of Obamacare.
If Eliana Kagen does not recuse herself then you can bet it is rigged.
Oh Oh! I did an Obama. It is 26 states NOT 29 :-)
Unfortunately, I don’t have that much confidence the SC will do the right thing. The fact that we have to take this to the SC to determine if the government can make us buy something is beyond insane.
I agree. I don’t think the court will overturn it. Last DC circuit judge “conservative” ruled in favor of it. Handwriting on the wall big time!
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
That would be great.
If the government can mandate what you can buy, it surely can mandate what you can't buy.
One day the government may come to my house and tell me to buy a gun and a Bible. Next day the government may come to may house and tell me to buy a Chevy Volt, and a particular brand of condoms. And when you don't buy what the government tells you...
I won't go to the government's camps without bringing death and destruction with me.
5.56mm
Bears repeating:
I disagree. In Supreme Court decisions I have read when a questionable law is found not to have violated the constitution, the justices usually take pains to point out it is an issue that must be decided on a political basis by Congress. That could make the 2012 election a public referendum on Obamacare and if the public is educated about what the program actually contains and the effect it will have on an already over-burdened healthcare system, it could be a republican landslide.
We have a lot of educating to do. . .
Ding,ding,ding,ding . . . . We have a winner!
Terry Mross wrote:
<<
If the SC rules in favor of obama, it hands him the election. Of course, I’m about 90% convinced it’s all rigged anyway.
>>
**************************************************************
I disagree... If the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare, I think it will hurt Obama’s re-election chances because the American people clearly DON’T WANT this job-killing, liberty-destroying, budget-busting POS legislation in their lives, as evidence by the resounding rebuke of ObamaCare by the Ohio voters last week. Repealing this monstrosity would be a perfect issue for the GOP presidential nominee to have as part of his/her campaign platform.
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, I see it as a lose-lose proposition for Hussein Obama. I just hope the court does the right thing and strikes this heinous law down before it does any further damage to the country and the economy.
I detect no hyperbole in your statement at all. In every society that has gone toward Marxism, once they got nationalized control of the doctors, they never went back. Witness Nazi Germany, Bolshevik Russia, and formerly-Great Britain. The only end to such societies is either revolution or outside conquest (or liberation, in the case of Germany, but they went right back to socialism).
“ugliest lesbian” - that’s redundant....
If government can force you to buy things, Freedom is a sham.
REVOLUTION!
Standing is not an issue in these cases.
The Court granted cert. in four cases, raising the following four issues:
1. Does the Anti-Injunction Act prevent the courts from hearing a challenge to the Act before it goes into effect? (1 hour of argument granted). This is not a "standing" issue, but if the Court decides that the Anti-Injunction Act applies, the courts can't decide the constituionality of the Act until the individual mandate goes into effect. Some of the legal blogs are suggesting that this approach may appeal to Justice Kennedy, because if Congress repeals the Act following the 2012 elections, the constitutional issue will never come up.
2. If the Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply, is the individual mandate constitutional? (2 hours of argument granted).
3. If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, should it be severed or should the entire Act be struck down? (90 minutes of argument granted).
4. Is the portion of the Act requiring states to increase Medicaid funding constitutional? (1 hour of argument granted). This is a surprise, because none of the lower courts (even the ones which struck down the individual mandate) found this provision unconstitutional.
Incidentally, 5-1/2 hours of argument in the Supreme Court is unprecedented in modern times. They didn't hear that much argument even in Brown v. Board of Education. So the Court clearly recognizes that this is a uniquely important case.
You know, I tend to get excited over news items like this, only to get hit with the perverbial sledgehammer of disappointment later. So I will hold me enthusiasm until I see that Kagan has recused herself or that Kennedy isn’t channeling his inner Ted Kennedy on this one.
It's true, but the caller misses the constitution specifically mentions a "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment. The act also limits the requirement to own and maintain arms to registered militiamen who fit criteria of being able-bodied white men between 18 and 45. (Yes, it specifies white men.)
That's much different from requiring all Americans to buy healthcare.
It's true, but the caller misses the constitution specifically mentions a "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment. The act also limits the requirement to own and maintain arms to registered militiamen who fit criteria of being able-bodied white men between 18 and 45. (Yes, it specifies white men.)
That's much different from requiring all Americans to buy healthcare.
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.