Posted on 03/28/2012 9:44:18 AM PDT by Bill Buckner
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.
Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.
(Excerpt) Read more at fox43.com ...
” Don’t forget the DEMs changing the locks on the committee room so the GOP could not participate in healthcare discussions ...”
Is this true? I never heard this anywhere before.
"JUSTICE SCALIA: Is there any dictionary that gives that
-MR. FARR: I'm sorry, Justice Scalia?
JUSTICE SCALIA: -- that definition of "essential"? It's very imaginative. Just give me one dictionary.
MR. FARR: Well, but I think my point, Justice Scalia, is that they are not using it in the true dictionary sense.
JUSTICE SCALIA: How do we know that? When people speak, I assume they are speaking English.
-------------------------
Ohime, Giudice Scalia. Che un bigotta! Congresso hai sempre in bocca l'italiana. Non e ver? Si, Congresso scrive la legge in italiana. O in keniota!
[Alas, Judge Scalia. What a bigot! Congress always speaks Italian. Isn't it true? Yes, Congress wrote the law in Italian. Or in Kenyan!]
Justice Ginsburg arguing for “restraint”? That’s a new one!
“Breyer at one point suggested that everyone automatically becomes a participant in the heatlh-care market as soon as they’re born. Because no human being can escape illness, Breyer said, everyone will at some point require medical services; this includes those who cannot pay or those who lack insurance.”
Same goes for food, water, transportation (whether driving, walking, riding), furniture (we all need to sit, lay down, put stuff on tables), and a whole host of other things.
I agree that that would be the perception, but this Law was cobbled together by Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid with very little input from Obama.
Despite Kennedy’s seeming warming to the mandate at the end, he never got an answer to what he and several other Justices repeatedly asked: “Where is the Limitation?” The govt. never answered the question because there it cannot. If the mandate stands, enumerated powers of the govt. is destroyed completely. There is no way around that. Kennedy knows it as he continued to asked the question, which of course, was never answered.
Hey, I didn’t say they would, but it’s what
they NEED to do.
It’s past time they were held responsible for
their actions.
“Despite Kennedy’s seeming warming to the mandate at the end, he never got an answer to what he and several other Justices repeatedly asked: “Where is the Limitation?” The govt. never answered the question because there it cannot. If the mandate stands, enumerated powers of the govt. is destroyed completely. There is no way around that. Kennedy knows it as he continued to asked the question, which of course, was never answered.”
This could be the key. Kennedy might think himself smart enough to see the limit but believe his successors would go beyond his self-imposed limit.
Lucy and the football.....
I like the way that sounds.
Hey Free Republic got mentioned on the gatewaypundit,
The Supreme Court Justices are poised to throw out the entire Obamacare law.
FOX 43 reported, via Free Republic:
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law’s controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
“One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an “extreme proposition” to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.
Meanwhile, the court’s liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a “salvage job,” not undertake a “wrecking operation.” But she looked to be out-voted.
I know, and I often wish we could retrieve the word liberal, as in “liberal democracy,” but like what happens to lots of words that get caught up in changing events, liberal will never mean what it originally meant, regarding Rule of Law, individualism, liberty and self-governance. It has been replaced by “conservatism.” But you are right, the leftist judges are radicals.
With all due respect, Justice Breyer, that might be the case if this court did not tolerate the practice of partial birth abortions, and situations where a baby is born and left to die without any medical care - those babies don't become a participant. Unless you wish to classify corpse disposal as "healthcare". [Reason 756 why In Maryland would never be admitted to the Supreme Court Bar]
And, by the way, Justice Breyer, there are citizens of this great country who choose to live a simple life, living off the land, and using traditional natural remedies to treat illness. Is this court now proposing they should be forced to pay a penalty for exercising an entirely legal means of pursuing happiness? [Reason 757 why In Maryland would never be admitted to the Supreme Court Bar]
I’m with you!
If I'm not mistaken, I believe today's session was based on the premise, "so, if we do find the mandate Unconstitutional, what does that do to the rest of the law?"
That is, all of the questions implied the overturn of the mandate because that was the nature of the premise they were examining. It doesn't mean that anyone has actually committed to making that finding in the first place.
Especially given that there is no severability clause. The marxists who wrote the bill/law were so "smart" that they didn't include a severability clause. Tough luck.
Personally, I think we’re screwed. I’ll be happy to be surprised, but I don’t expect to be.
Obama: “We need 5 more years...
------------------
One thing that became cyrstal clear during these 3 days of arguments is that the individual mandate is another ponzi scheme - the government will shift the cost of older people's healthcare on younger workers, and when those younger workers get old, we'll shift their costs to even younger workers.
Does that call to mind any other government program? Hum, let me think ...
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.