Topic: SCOTUS 2012: The Grand Finale

[Pandora]

A conservative-leaning appeals court panel on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care law ...

"Conservative-leaning" according to whom?  The AP?

[charlesoakwood]

Insult; and SCOTUS will deliver the injury.

They are racking up a lot of wins.  They are on
cruise control toward a complete transformative
event.  Peace be upon them.

 

[IronDioPriest]

Mid 2012: SCOTUS rules ObamaCare constitutional => Tea Party citizens take to the streets => "Occupiers" meet them for the purpose of violent conflict => Government puts the hammer down => Game over.

Just something that popped into my mind, not a prediction. But if one would have asked me 3 years ago if such a thing were possible, I would've said they were wearing a tin-foil hat. Now it seems completely within the realm of possibility, with variations on the theme expanding the likelihood even further.

[Weisshaupt]

Sigh.

The day Obamacare is upheld by the Supreme Court is the day I declare full out, no holds barred war on the Federal Government and every damn liberal in this country.
I really hope I am not alone in that assessment, and that on that day millions of violent  insurgents are created.

From the comments:

To a certain point, it almost doesn’t even matter to me anymore if the mandate is upheld. I mean, on it’s face, that’s a blatantly untrue statement. But what I mean is, I don’t need the Supreme Court, or any lower court, to tell me the mandate is unconstitutional. It obviously is. I have no intention of ever complying with the mandate, nor do I consider myself to have any moral duty to do so.

I obey laws, I pay my taxes, even when I think they are stupid. Other laws, such as state requirements to purchase auto insurance, are bad law–but constitutional, and I obey those laws. This law, with this mandate, however? Different story. My conscience is clear on this. I’ll never comply. This strikes at the core of what it is to be American, and if in fact this law is constitutional, then we have irretrievably lost what it means to be American.

 

[Pandora]

Merging with previous thread.

[Weisshaupt]

Merging with previous thread.

Thanks Pan. I missed it.

[Weisshaupt]

Mid 2012: SCOTUS rules ObamaCare constitutional => Tea Party citizens take to the streets => "Occupiers" meet them for the purpose of violent conflict => Government puts the hammer down => Game over.

Just something that popped into my mind, not a prediction. But if one would have asked me 3 years ago if such a thing were possible, I would've said they were wearing a tin-foil hat. Now it seems completely within the realm of possibility, with variations on the theme expanding the likelihood even further.

Game Over?
Game On.
Hammer Down?
The more you tighten your grip the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
The government is too large and too full of morons to deal with a full on insurrection effectively , especially when half of the military will be deserting to join us, along with the heavy equipment.

The same sentiments were probably voiced about the original colonists chances of fighting against parliament, England and the King.  But even if said insurrection were to fail, I would rather die in the effort than survive to see the end.  Give Me Liberty or Give me Death, and Death isn't exactly plan A.

[Pandora]

Merging with previous thread.

Thanks Pan. I missed it.

You're welcome.  Not a problem.

[IronDioPriest]

Mid 2012: SCOTUS rules ObamaCare constitutional => Tea Party citizens take to the streets => "Occupiers" meet them for the purpose of violent conflict => Government puts the hammer down => Game over.

Just something that popped into my mind, not a prediction. But if one would have asked me 3 years ago if such a thing were possible, I would've said they were wearing a tin-foil hat. Now it seems completely within the realm of possibility, with variations on the theme expanding the likelihood even further.

Game Over?
Game On.
Hammer Down?
The more you tighten your grip the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
The government is too large and too full of morons to deal with a full on insurrection effectively , especially when half of the military will be deserting to join us, along with the heavy equipment.

The same sentiments were probably voiced about the original colonists chances of fighting against parliament, England and the King.  But even if said insurrection were to fail, I would rather die in the effort than survive to see the end.  Give Me Liberty or Give me Death, and Death isn't exactly plan A.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant the game as it exists - hoping for an electoral solution without strife and open conflict. It certainly would be the dawn of something new, but I was speaking of what will be lost. Life as we know it. The American dream, as we have known it. A nation that solves its internal conflicts at the ballot box. That game. Over.

By putting the hammer down, I meant a declaration of martial law, and the federal government openly turning against the citizenry. The effectiveness of any resistance or ineptitude of any government assault on liberty remains to be seen.

[Pandora]

Want a look at the legal-eagle angels-on-pinheads-dancing to which our "legal system" has devolved?  One really needs to read the following to fully grasp the ongoing segue right away from the Constitution:

From Volokh ... via Mike C.

The modern Supreme Court is reluctant to directly overrule precedents, especially well-entrenched precedents, but is not at all reluctant to distinguish precedents, even when the distinctions in question are quite strained. I could present many examples, but just consider, for example, how Boy Scouts of America v. Dole turned out not to be governed by Roberts v. United States Jaycees; the Court distinguished Matthews v. Eldridge from Goldberg v. Kelly; or how the Court has gone back and forth between relying on Mulligan and Quirin in detainee cases without overruling either one of them, or really explaining how they don’t contradict each other.

So now that the opponents of the individual mandate have manged to make arguments that pass the laugh test, the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision will involve such factors as: (1) How popular will the individual mandate, and health care reform more generally, be when the Court takes up the issue?; (2) How popular will President Obama be at that time? (3) The Republicans on the Court will undoubtedly be less likely to support a law passed with only Democratic support; (4) Will Justice Kennedy be more in the mood to be susceptible to the “Greenhouse Effect,” or to cement his conservative credentials, which in part will depend on, “How close to retirement is he?” (5) Does Justice Scalia think that invalidating the individual mandate will somehow hurt the cause of ultimately overruling Roe v. Wade, something that I think is always on Justice Scalia’s mind? (6) Will the Republican House and the expanded Republican minority in the Senate show in any way that they take federalism and limited national government seriously, the way the Contract with America undoubtedly made Lopez more viable, and the Big Government conservatism of the Bush Administration helped lead to Raich? (7) Will the Court have other issues before it on which the conservative Justices would rather spend their political capital? And so on... UPDATE: [8] I left out a crucial factor: If the liberals on the Court, like the dissenters in Lopez, are unable to articular a limiting principle that would prevent their decision from giving the federal government an essentially plenary police power to regulate virtually all human activity and inactivity, the individual mandate is doomed. The conservative majority simply will not accept a doctrine that suggests that federal power is not one of limited and enumerated powers.

Looking at these factors a year later: (1) The mandate is unpopular, and less popular than ever; (2) Ditto for the president; (3) no change; (4) Kennedy seems to have no intention of retiring; (5) there has been a conservative backlash over Scalia’s decidedly non-originalist opinions in Raich and McDonald, which has eroded Scalia’s standing among Federalist types in favor of Thomas as the new standard-bearer. I can’t imagine that Scalia is completely oblivious to this, or to the fact that a vote upholding the mandate will erode his standing further, but the Roe v. Wade question lingers; (6) the Republicans have not shown that they take federalism at all seriously; (7) there are no other issues of similar magnitude before the Court; and (8) this remains to be seen.

Also, consider this line: “Whether or not the best interpretation of those precedents supports the individual mandate or not is almost entirely irrelevant.” A conscientious circuit court judge, particularly one who, like Judge Silberman, has a lot invested in his reputation as an advocate of judicial restraint, could quite plausibly find that the best interpretation of precedent supports the constitutionality of the individual mandate. But when the case gets to the Supremes, the only relevant question is whether prior precedent clearly dictates upholding the mandate. I think the answer to that has been shown to be “no,” given all the opinions going the other way.

In short, I think the factors I enumerate are far more likely to affect the Court’s ultimate decision than whether Judge Sutton or Judge Silberman voted to uphold the mandate. I’m still not terribly optimistic that the mandate will be invalidated, but not because of the lower court opinions.

UPDATE: A clarification: I think likely all the conservative Justices on the Court think that if they were deciding things as an initial matter, without any relevant precedents and no political constraints on the Court, that the mandate would be unconstitutional as beyond Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. The constraints of both politics (in the broad sense of the word, including the Court being wary of preserving its authority and so on) and judicial culture (respect for precedent) are what would prevent the Court from invalidating the mandate. So I’m not arguing that the majority would invalidate the law because it suits them “politically.” I suspect that they all really think the law is unconstitutional but because of precedent and politics they need the right political environment to say so. If, for example, both the law and Obama were polling at 70%+, and the law had been passed with significant Republican support, and some of the leading Republican candidates supported the law, the chances that the Court would invalidate it would be approximately zero, regardless of the Justices’ views of its constitutionality. Maybe Thomas would dissent.

So, let me see now; according to this "reasoning", if both the law and the president were popular and both parties -- particularly the Ruling Class Republicans -- supported it, the Court would give a pass to legislation re-instituting slavery.

[Libertas]

Another obvious reason why expecting the courts to be the best hope of preserving our liberty is foolish beyond question!

I would like to beat so many court decisions over the bleeping heads of every Repub who decided not to fight to the death the legislative action that gave us ObamaCare!  Their utterly gutless choice to give up condemns us to the likelihood we'll have to be stuck with this rotten deal!

I damn them all!

 

[BMG]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68086.html

Can health ruling sink tea party?

This story just seems like another way for the media to disparage the Tea Party. The premiss is simply preposterous to me. If anything, if the Supreme Court were to declare Obamacare constitutionally sound, it would supercharge the Tea Party like almost nothing else could.

So yeah, to me this story is nothing more than a continuation of the marginalization of the Tea Party by the media.

[Libertas]

Agreed, the Left is so eager to put them in a grave they can't stand it...this is when we need to pop up and remind them we haven't gone away and will not be intimidated into being silenced, especially by the likes of this ilk!

[Alphabet Soup]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68086.html

Can health ruling sink tea party?

This story just seems like another way for the media to disparage the Tea Party. The premiss is simply preposterous to me. If anything, if the Supreme Court were to declare Obamacare constitutionally sound, it would supercharge the Tea Party like almost nothing else could.

So yeah, to me this story is nothing more than a continuation of the marginalization of the Tea Party by the media.

Wrong question.

Can health ruling sink a nation?

There, fixed it.

Here's an open prediction for anyone who may be watching. Øbamacare is such a monstrous overreach of federal authority that a SCOTUS upholding of it will spark open rebellion. OWS has been a girl scout outing compared to what you're gonna see. There will be blood in the streets. I won't be leading but I sure as hell will be participating.

So help me God.



BITS

[Pandora]

BITS .........

Rats.  I never remember what that stands for ........

[Alphabet Soup]

BITS .........

Rats.  I never remember what that stands for ........

Not to chide you or anything but I can't understand why you can't remember. Think once seen/never forgotten. Think visceral. Think...

Blood In The Streets

[Pandora]

BITS .........

Rats.  I never remember what that stands for ........

Not to chide you or anything but I can't understand why you can't remember. Think once seen/never forgotten. Think visceral. Think...

Blood In The Streets

I don't get it either, but hopefully with your helpfully supplied visual, I will in the future.   

[Weisshaupt]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68086.html

Can health ruling sink tea party?

This story just seems like another way for the media to disparage the Tea Party. The premiss is simply preposterous to me. If anything, if the Supreme Court were to declare Obamacare constitutionally sound, it would supercharge the Tea Party like almost nothing else could.

So yeah, to me this story is nothing more than a continuation of the marginalization of the Tea Party by the media.

I saw that and thought the same thing. Even if it doesn't lead to wide scale open rebellion ( though  I for one will not comply)  it would make the Tea Party  work even harder to take over the government and get it repealed.  Though personally, I don't think there are many left with the patience for that.  Its far more likely that you will see states leave the union, and/or pass non-compliance bills. Got to love how the article says the Tea Party supports  the "failed articles of confederation" vs the constitution.  Yeah, because for a liberals and their absolutes - either its no central control or all central control . The Constitution was never about creating a limited government whose MAIN PURPOSE was to protect the inalienable rights and freedoms of citizens. No. It was about creating a government that would have absolute control of the minutia of everyone's lives. Obviously.

[BMG]

@Weisshaupt:

I agree with your assessment.

[Pandora]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68086.html

Can health ruling sink tea party?

This story just seems like another way for the media to disparage the Tea Party. The premiss is simply preposterous to me. If anything, if the Supreme Court were to declare Obamacare constitutionally sound, it would supercharge the Tea Party like almost nothing else could.

So yeah, to me this story is nothing more than a continuation of the marginalization of the Tea Party by the media.

I saw that and thought the same thing. Even if it doesn't lead to wide scale open rebellion ( though  I for one will not comply)  it would make the Tea Party  work even harder to take over the government and get it repealed.  Though personally, I don't think there are many left with the patience for that.  Its far more likely that you will see states leave the union, and/or pass non-compliance bills. Got to love how the article says the Tea Party supports  the "failed articles of confederation" vs the constitution.  Yeah, because for a liberals and their absolutes - either its no central control or all central control . The Constitution was never about creating a limited government whose MAIN PURPOSE was to protect the inalienable rights and freedoms of citizens. No. It was about creating a government that would have absolute control of the minutia of everyone's lives. Obviously.

This ....

There is a distinct possibility that the high court could uphold the health care law’s constitutionality, not just with a 5-4 ruling — in which swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy sides with the court’s more liberal members — but with the support of conservative heroes, like Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts.

After all, Scalia concurred in the 2005 decision, Gonzales v. Raich, in which the court upheld a federal ban on possession of marijuana grown in accordance with local law for personal, medicinal use — because the ban was part of a broader regulation of interstate commerce.

Supporters of health care reform, relying on Raich as well as other legal precedents, have argued that the law is authorized by the Commerce Clause. As U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton—a conservative superstar in his own right—wrote when he upheld the constitutionality of the health care mandate, “if Congress could regulate Angel Raich when she grew marijuana on her property for self-consumption, indeed for self-medication, and if it could do so even when California law prohibited that marijuana from entering any state or national markets, it is difficult to see why Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.”

.... will further affirm the signal being sent that the Supreme Court is no more willing to stand for Constitutionalism than the Oppressives, that what matters most of all is upholding precedent.  THIS IS HOW WE GOT HERE!  By Court after Court torturing the Commerce Clause -- CLAUSE -- into meaning anything Congress wants it to mean; by way of isolating a CLAUSE from the rest of the Constitution.

Politico believes this kind of betrayal will take the wind out of the sails of normal people?  Boy, do they have another think coming.

I didn't read the rest of the piece -- disgust! -- so, did the author mention Ohio's vote against Obamacare?  I wager not, because they were part of the cheering section prophesying a vote "for" would signify a death-knell for future and continued resistance.