Topic: SCOTUS 2012: The Grand Finale

[IronDioPriest]

I don't think they ever intended to insurance mandate to pass constitutional muster. They want that part of the law overturned, leaving the rest of the law intact, leaving an unfunded mandate of astronomical proportion. then they will demagogue the hell out of Republicans wanting everyone to go without health care. Meanwhile, healthcare costs will continue to rise, and the numbers of people wanting "free healthcare" will grow, until the Leftists have enough control over government to pass a nationalized healthcare plane. Game. Set. Match. Yahtzee.

[Glock32]

But is the individual mandate severable? I don't think it is.

[Pandora]

But is the individual mandate severable? I don't think it is.

Supposedly, no.  Whoever wrote the damn bill forgot to include a "severability clause"; technically that would be that.

However ....

That sort of thing doesn't seem to matter to courts these days.  Missing parts of laws are "deemed" to have been included.

[Libertas]

But is the individual mandate severable? I don't think it is.

Supposedly, no.  Whoever wrote the damn bill forgot to include a "severability clause"; technically that would be that.

However ....

That sort of thing doesn't seem to matter to courts these days.  Missing parts of laws are "deemed" to have been included.

I want the letter of the constitution adhered to, all this deeming and scheming be damned!  If SCOTUS fails to kill this in its totality, well, next stop - civil war!

[CatholicCrusader]

I want the letter of the constitution adhered to, all this deeming and scheming be damned!  If SCOTUS fails to kill this in its totality, well, next stop - civil war!

SCOTUS has not been doing TOO bad lately. Let's give them a chance

[Sectionhand]

There's been a lot of discussion in the media for several weeks over the "possibility/probability" that several conservative justices ( Kennedy , Scalia , Alito ) will side with the liberal minority . In his AP article this morning an obviously liberal schmuck reporter named Mark Sherman is proffering this very idea . He even quotes several liberal law professors to back up his premise . It's hard to know how many people are aware of actually who he's quoting and their "bona fides" but one learned lawyer he consulted is Carter Phillips with Sidley Austin LLP ... the firm based in Chicago which employed Stymie , Aunt Jemimah and "Bombing Bernadine " Dohrn . At the end of the "news article" Sherman makes the declarative statement ; " It's hard to imagine Scalia as the only conservative justice in favor of the law ."  It's also not hard to figure out who's ass Sherman has his "unbiased" head up !

[Libertas]

Yeah, typical MFM front-running BS!  He's got an ulterior motive - justification for riots in the streets if SCOTUS kills ObamaCare!

   the MFM!

[Libertas]

Arguments today!

AP is full of crap as usual!  "Polls have consistently shown the public is at best ambivalent about the benefits of the health care law, and that a majority of Americans believe the insurance requirement is unconstitutional."

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120326/D9TO4G200.html

And get a load of this Neal Katyal!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/rejecting-obamacare-grave-profound-232716680.html

"If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn't just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: 'Look, we've got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it. And that's a really profound thing for an unelected court to say."

Umm, Dickhead?!

96% against only 4% for!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/callouts/health-care-case/

Wanna revise your BS?  Yeah, that's what I thought!  Asshole!

Oh, and no recusal from Kagan on hearing arguments, eh?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/25/ruling-on-health-care-case-hard-to-predict/?page=all#pagebreak

It will come down to Kennedy, again!  And I am not feeling good about that!  Watch it come down to one vote and the fact that Kagan's non-recusal swung it!

One might be able to argue given the poll above that if the Supreme's do not kill this beast that a lot of people might want to burn the courthouse down if they let ObamaCare stand!

 

[Weisshaupt]

"If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn't just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: 'Look, we've got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it. And that's a really profound thing for an unelected court to say."

If 95% of Americans want this law, it should be easy to get an amendment to allow it.

[Libertas]

"If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn't just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: 'Look, we've got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it. And that's a really profound thing for an unelected court to say."

If 95% of Americans want this law, it should be easy to get an amendment to allow it.

Yes, and if a clear majority hate it then it was passed over the objections of people who knew what it was or learned later what it is, either way the fact that it was passed in the dead of night through dubious means was all meant to bypass any chance for popular democratic support unifying against it.  The court might want to consider that!  But a straight vote with full disclosure to the people is not what the passage of this abomination was about!

[charlesoakwood]

You've got to live it before you understand it.

[Libertas]

I understand it and don't want to live it.  Pretty much explains why leftists are completely 180 degrees out of phase with me!

[Pandora]

"If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn't just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: 'Look, we've got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it. And that's a really profound thing for an unelected court to say."

If 95% of Americans want this law, it should be easy to get an amendment to allow it.

Yes, and if a clear majority hate it then it was passed over the objections of people who knew what it was or learned later what it is, either way the fact that it was passed in the dead of night through dubious means was all meant to bypass any chance for popular democratic support unifying against it.  The court might want to consider that!  But a straight vote with full disclosure to the people is not what the passage of this abomination was about!

Passed not just over people's objections, but without one vote "for" by almost half of Congress.  The Republicans knew the majority of the people they represent said NO.

"The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it."

What if 95% of Americans want slavery? 

Morons.  I live in a country filled with morons.

[Libertas]

Morons/zombies, both heads pop when you hit 'em.

[Weisshaupt]

What if 95% of Americans want slavery? 

Then they can have it. Legally. And did have for over 100 years under the Constitution. You just need to amend the document to allow it.
Of course, Civil wars have been know to break out over such things because Morally and from a Natural Rights perspective  they are still wrong.

[Pandora]

What if 95% of Americans want slavery? 

Then they can have it. Legally. And did have for over 100 years under the Constitution. You just need to amend the document to allow it.
Of course, Civil wars have been know to break out over such things because Morally and from a Natural Rights perspective  they are still wrong.

I know that, you know that; my asking was rhetorically aimed at the moron who believes the Court is going to deprive people of "what they want".  Oh, excuse me, "the unelected court".  One of the morons who believe in a living Constitution", if they consider it at all, which the aforesaid moron apparently doesn't."

[Sectionhand]

I will no longer refer to this monstrosity as the Affordable Health Care blah , blah , blah .... or even Stymiecare ... From now on when or if I post about it ... I'll use Biden's description ... it's "The Big F*cking Deal" ! ... Democrats are famous for their "Deals" ... and this one is the pisser of all time !

[Alphabet Soup]

I will no longer refer to this monstrosity as the Affordable Health Care blah , blah , blah .... or even Stymiecare ... From now on when or if I post about it ... I'll use Biden's description ... it's "The Big F*cking Deal" ! ... Democrats are famous for their "Deals" ... and this one is the pisser of all time !

I like that idea.

Today Medved starts out by declaring that Republicans need to "moderate their tone" if they want to attract more "undecideds" to their side. I hope the guy in the car next to me didn't think I met him when I shouted out, " "F" you Medved!"

[charlesoakwood]

I'll use Biden's description ... it's "The Big F*cking Deal" ! ... Democrats are famous for their "Deals" ... and this one is the pisser of all time !

Yes, this most definitely is Obama's BFD.  This BFD will
determine America's future for the next half century or more. 

We must search for edification of America before Roosevelt
will there be any evidence of America before Obama?

[Pandora]

I will no longer refer to this monstrosity as the Affordable Health Care blah , blah , blah .... or even Stymiecare ... From now on when or if I post about it ... I'll use Biden's description ... it's "The Big F*cking Deal" ! ... Democrats are famous for their "Deals" ... and this one is the pisser of all time !

I like that idea.

Today Medved starts out by declaring that Republicans need to "moderate their tone" if they want to attract more "undecideds" to their side. I hope the guy in the car next to me didn't think I met him when I shouted out, " "F" you Medved!"

Again, with the "tone" crap!