4 Republican justices control fate of health law

Associated Press ^ | 3/18/12 | MARK SHERMAN

[SmithL]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Here's a thought that can't comfort President Barack Obama: The fate of his health care overhaul rests with four Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices.

His most sweeping domestic achievement could be struck down if they stand together with Justice Clarence Thomas, another GOP appointee who is the likeliest vote against.

But the good news for Obama is that he probably needs only one of the four to side with him to win approval of the law's crucial centerpiece, the requirement that almost everyone in this country has insurance or pays a penalty.

Lawyers with opposing views of the issue uniformly agree that the four Democratic-appointed justices, including Obama's two picks, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, will have no trouble concluding that Congress did not overstep its authority in adopting the insurance requirement that is aimed at sharply reducing the now 50 million people without insurance.

On the other side, Thomas has made clear in several cases that he does not take an expansive view of Congress' powers.

Both the Obama administration and the health care law's challengers believe they can attract the other four Republicans to their side. The group includes Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the two appointees of President George W. Bush who have swung the court to the right in a number of areas; conservative stalwart Antonin Scalia; and the less doctrinaire Anthony Kennedy.

[Pollster1]

This law is so clearly unconstitutional that no honest person can argue that it is valid. Unfortunately, we’re dealing with the Supreme Court, and far too many Justices have no interest in the document they are required by their oath to uphold.

[unkus]

I hope these conservative justices don’t wake up with horse heads in their beds.

Unfortunately, I think it’s probable with this criminal Regime.

[Diogenesis]

There is not one conservative on SCOTUS.

They bowed to the undocumented one,
even as a litigant over John Jay's grave.

On July 25th, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention:

"[T]he people are the sovereign of this country, and consequently that
fellow citizens and joint sovereigns cannot be degraded by appearing
with each other in their own courts to have their controversies determined.
The people have reason to prize and rejoice in such valuable privileges,
and they ought not to forget that nothing but the free course
of constitutional law and government can ensure the continuance
and enjoyment of them."
[John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia]

The Convention agreed and without debate the provision suggested by Jay was written into the Constitution.

That Jay’s advice was taken is not surprising because in his career Jay was President of the Continental Congress, Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court, 1st Chief Justice of the United States, Ambassador to Spain and France, Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Secretary of State) and Governor of New York, among other things. He wasn’t a man whose advice could be ignored. Note that what particularly concerned Jay was not a political issue but a military issue arising because the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. He was bothered by issues of National Security."

[Theodore R.]

Reagan’s “Sacramento Kid” will come through yet for Obama.

[chris37]

I love how our very freedom is controlled by four unelected, unanswerable federal judges. Or is it one?

Our freedom is nothing more than an illusion.

[coloradan]

In the liberal media bias department, note that the ‘rats are merely “Democrat-appointed” but some on the right are either “conservative stalwarts” or they are “less doctrinaire” (but still doctrinaire). There are never any doctrinaire leftists, whether more so or less so, and there are certainly never any liberal stalwarts.

[Bobalu]

I always remember the conservative justices in my prayers.
I suggest all Freepers do the same.

[Lysandru]

So what does this say about Democrat appointments? Even the State-Run AP is admitting that they are sure to vote to infringe on our liberty. Can any of them be considered “independent minded?” The answer is obvious, isn’t it?

[Lysandru]

So what does this say about Democrat appointments? Even the State-Run AP is admitting that they are sure to vote to infringe on our liberty. Can any of them be considered “independent minded?” The answer is obvious, isn’t it?

[Kickass Conservative]

Yahoo comes through again. Those mean old Republican Justices want to take away your Health care.

The other five are just like Obama, making sure the Government knows what's best for you, whether you like it or not.

Don't worry about that Constitution thingy, it's just a bunch of mindless drivel written by some demented old White Slave Owners anyway.

[Still Thinking]

So what does this say about Democrat appointments? Even the State-Run AP is admitting that they are sure to vote to infringe on our liberty. Can any of them be considered “independent minded?” The answer is obvious, isn’t it?

Excellent point, especially when viewed in justaxposition with coloradan's post. The conservatives get all the extremist adjectives yet the article counts the leftists votes with more confidence than the supposed conservatives. Their own article gives the lie to their characterization of the justices.

[Grampa3711]

Well, it’s true: there are no liberal stalwarts. There are liberal frauds, and there are liberal fools, but those are about the only classes extant: no stalwarts.

[pfflier]

Funny how they want to woo the conservatives to their cause.

The real issue is constitutionality and they should fear that an unbiased judge would stray from the dim indoctrination.

They have no fear of this as demonstrated by the following excerpt:

Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, will have no trouble concluding that Congress did not overstep its authority

[Dilbert San Diego]

if Obama had his way, two of the justices, Roberts and Alito, would not be on the Supreme Court.

He voted against confirming both of them to the Supreme Court when he was a Senator.

[Mrs. Don-o]

bttt

[Dilbert San Diego]

I object to the whole tone of this article.

It talks about how the fate of the law hinges on approval or disapproval of four conservative justices. It makes it sound as if the court is a legislative body, with voting blocs which have to be convinced to vote for a piece of legislation.

The role of the courts is not that of a legislative body. The role of the courts in cases such as this is, or is supposed to be, to rule as to whether the law is constitutional or unconstitutional.

The court is going to rule on whether the federal government exceeded its authority by passing this law. It is not supposed to rule on whether it approves of said law as a public policy position.

If this high profile case helps educate the public, and liberals, as to the role of the courts within our constitutional republic, that would be a good thing.

[sheana]

That’s because they need to throw ‘precedent’ out the window. Just because someone else ruled some way on something doesn’t make it right.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks SmithL. Cue the Foundations.

[singing] Why do you build me up, buttercup baby...

[varon]

4 Republican justices control fate of health law

Anytime Republicans control fate, of anything, we are so screwed...........