Posted on 06/26/2012 8:28:01 AM PDT by doubledeuceswayze
I believe the mandate at the core of the proposed laws, requiring Americans to purchase health insurance or suffer a penalty shall be struck down. Additionally, I believe that it is possible that the Supreme Court vote against the mandate will be unanimous.
The mandate at the center of this current scheme is its Achilles heel, and this mandate is particularly peculiar in that the concept should be contrary to both strict textualist and progressive liberal ideologies. In essence, requiring a person to buy a service from another person or a private corporation without having first actively chosen to engage in some risky activity, and that the failure to do so would be in violation of a law, is a concept few if any Supreme Court Justices are likely to support.
(Excerpt) Read more at seekingalpha.com ...
Outstanding article. Well-written and boldly argued. Let’s hope it happens!
Ginsberg said ‘people who talk don’t know’. She talked so she doesn’t know!
I say again since it bears repeating that there actually is need for medical reform in this country... it’s just that the reforms we actually need, starting with major kinds of tort reform, do not resemble obungacare at all. The four or five things we need are things which TR called “Trust Busting”, and would be simple and inexpensive to implement.
It's tough to predict.
Based on the baby splitting of the AZ case, there's going to be all sorts of paper flying out on Thursday.
Nice try nOOb.
Excerpting your own article?
IBTZ
LOL. I’m not even sure Kennedy will vote to strike down the mandate. His judicial philosophy is psycho-social neo Kennedyism.
Go easy on him. It's a good piece. Sometimes it takes noobs time to learn the ropes. I've been there (14 years ago, anyway, LOL).
The logic may apply to Sotomayer, but I think Kagan and Ginsberg are in bed together.
It surely is, as the author's pseudonym implies (and if it isn't, you should be very wary of what he says). He advocates Federal "regulation" of healthcare, which IS fascist and still unconstitutional.
Anybody who would take that name as a pseudonym is somebody you should scrutinize very carefully. Shimon bar Kochba claimed to be Messiah. He started a revolt against the Romans that that forced Israel into exile for nearly 2000 years and cost over 150,000 Jews their lives. In fact, it was the refusal of Jewish Christians to join in that revolt that deepened the already broken bonds between those two groups first shattered in the rebellion that cost Israel the Temple in 70CE. Shabbatai Zevi (or Tsvi if you like) was ANOTHER claimant to Messiah (the last... so far), who was gathering over a million Jews to retake the Holy Land back in the late 1600s. He was nabbed by the sultan in Istanbul and "converted" to Islam at the point of a sword. The young Turks who foisted the Armenian genocide were his direct ideological descendants (as was Kemal Ataturk BTW).
“...but I think Kagan and Ginsberg are in bed together.”
Now, that is one ugly thought. :p
That is one butt ugly mental picture right there.
Scotus showed yesterday they are not prepared to do their job. They piece-mealed the Arizona decision so they could give a little to everyone. They are using a purely political template. Why say this? Because there is no sane judge who'd read the Constitution to say that a state law cannot be enacted because it violates a president's decision to implement it.
IOW, if it had been a conservative president unconcerned with his direction being mirrored by a state law, then that Az law would have been constitutional. The ruling yesterday was that it's unconstitutional to violate a chief executive's whim. That's insane....as Scalia said, it's "mind-boggling".
What does this mean? It means they'll put a political template on the ObamaCare decision and give everyone a little bit of what they want. (And they'll turn a blind eye to any whim on the part of the president to fund it via executive redistribution of funds.)
5-4 will be fine with me.
They will most likely leave the 26-year old "kid" and pre-existing condition requirement on the books, which will add to the misery to insurers that this author details.
If Ginsberg is writing the dissent and Roberts the majority opinion,if that’s true, then we can be confident that the individual mandate, at the very least, is toast. Do you have a source on this (Ginsberg writing for the minority)?
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.