Supremes will strike down Obamacare?

[JollyRoger]

I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will not go activist here, will not substitute its judgment for that of the elected representatives of we the people, and will not legislate from the bench.

 

[FriendlyFire]

5-4 down party lines.

 

[timtofly]

Separation of church and state.

"In God we trust" on every dollar bill.


It's always been a fact that conservatives are just as happy as liberals to cherry pick which parts of the constitution they want to uphold. What's always puzzled me is why a 200(0)+ year old document should have such relevance to modern laws.

Because it is the basis of freedom. If you take freedom away you have "souless" people in a machine, doing the same thing day after day. Separation of church and state is different from seperation of God and state. Since Athiest do not adhere to a God, why should that bother them? In God we trust has nothing to do with the state telling you how to choose your religious preference.

I would not be offended if it said in Money we trust. I may think it is absurd, since it seems the more money we throw at things the more they fall apart. If it is the principle of the thing, then we have a lot more to worry about than just the name God on our currency. Seems there are no deities demanding that it be there.

I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will not go activist here, will not substitute its judgment for that of the elected representatives of we the people, and will not legislate from the bench.

Would that only screw over 50% of the people from four years ago, and even less since the current approval rating is lower?

 

[JollyRoger]

Would that only screw over 50% of the people from four years ago, and even less since the current approval rating is lower?

From my understanding of rightwing theory on judicial activism, the proper thing to do is translate that approval rating into votes and legislatively modify the law - not get 5 unelected judges to legislate from the bench.

 

[LucyDuke]

Showing up and saying it:

Please don't screw this up, America.

We already did.


I don't know if I hope they uphold it. The whole thing should've been completely different. If I hope they uphold it, I'm settling on this being the best we're ever gonna get. That makes me sad. I wish they'd kill it and make room for us to replace it with something better. Something that, among a lot of other differences, doesn't let the church people complain that they don't get to decide what medicine anyone gets. But the likelihood of something better going through... probably won't be possible for years.

Yeah I guess I hope they uphold it. I'm not familiar enough with the system to know, and I'm not going to pretend I know, what the actual likelihood is, but I'm pessimistic.

 

[Cutlass]

5-4 down party lines.

1 of them doesn't know what party he's in.

 

[timtofly]

From my understanding of rightwing theory on judicial activism, the proper thing to do is translate that approval rating into votes and legislatively modify the law - not get 5 unelected judges to legislate from the bench.

Would that be the current approval rating, or the one four years ago?

 

[Berzerker]

Do yu know better than the framing generation? In 1789, the framing generation was legislating healthcare (Lighthouse Act - lighthouses not mentioned in the Constitution). In 1792, they legislated a mandate to purchase goods and services from the private sector (Militia Act which was a federalization of state militias).

Maritime/navy is mentioned, so at most you could argue the Act provided care for people serving in some capacity for the government - injured merchant seamen. And the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate both the military and militias, including weaponry and ammunition. Turning that into a power to make people buy health insurance (Jesus H Christ people) aint kosher, Congress could mandate dietary laws based on cost shifting in health care - cost shifting Congress already mandated by law.

 

[JollyRoger]

Would that be the current approval rating, or the one four years ago?

It doesn't matter. If the approval rating is so bad, it should be easy to repeal legislatively. No need to get men in robes to do it.

Maritime/navy is mentioned, so at most you could argue the Act provided care for people serving in some capacity for the government - injured merchant seamen. And the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate both the military and militias, including weaponry and ammunition. Turning that into a power to make people buy health insurance (Jesus H Christ people) aint kosher, Congress could mandate dietary laws based on cost shifting in health care - cost shifting Congress already mandated by law.

Commerce Clause. Insurance is commerce.

 

[kramerfan86]

its going to be 5-4 either for or against, all depends on Kennedy. His comments havent sounded very pro-law, but just because he is asking tough questions doesnt mean he will rule that way.

 

[timtofly]

It doesn't matter. If the approval rating is so bad, it should be easy to repeal legislatively. No need to get men in robes to do it.

Commerce Clause. Insurance is commerce.

I always thought the men in black were to watch are backs as in a check and balance system. The man in white should not legisltate either for all that is worth. The appeals process is the other side getting a fair hearing even if people do not like the outcome, myself included.

 

[JollyRoger]

I always thought the men in black were to watch are backs as in a check and balance system.

Not according to standard rightwing judicial activism theory.

 

[Berzerker]

Commerce Clause. Insurance is commerce.

So that would be an argument for Congress regulating interstate insurance, not making everyone buy it. Can Congress mandate dietary laws? Food is commerce and obese people are costing us $$$... Hell, by that argument Congress could mandate we buy and eat lousy food too. Maybe Congress decides the corn sugar market needs help so the crap is put into our food for us... Oh wait

 

[timtofly]

Not according to standard rightwing judicial activism theory.

Which only exist when a dem is in white. If a rep was in white, then it would be standard leftwing judicial activism theory.

 

[kramerfan86]

Even though Im sort of on the fence about the law (think some parts of it are good but overall the nature of the negotiations made it a pretty sloppy bill), but I really dont like setting the precedent of letting the government force purchases. Its one thing to force something like car insurance which is an optional addition to your life, but Im not a huge fan of the idea government can just force me to buy whatever it deems best for me.

 

[FriendlyFire]

so that would be an argument for congress regulating interstate insurance, not making everyone buy it. Can congress mandate dietary laws? Food is commerce and obese people are costing us $$$... Hell, by that argument congress could mandate we buy and eat lousy food too. Maybe congress decides the corn sugar market needs help so the crap is put into our food for us... Oh wait

fda ?

 

[otago]

Reading a conservative site where they are saying that so called Obamacare is unconstitutional in that it forces people to do things against their will.
If so called Obamacare is unconstitutional does that not make Medicare and Social security the same as it takes money via a payroll tax which no employee as an option on ?

 

[LucyDuke]

No, the programs are administrated completely differently.

(Yeah, you'll hear arguments that those are unconstitutional too, but the specifics in this case are different. Which is dumb.)

 

[amadeus]

Hope so in case I should return, but I'd say in general the likelihood is at least 75% that it'll be overturned. I'm no constitutional scholar (nor is the president, as it seems) but I don't know how the federal government can seriously consider mandating the American people, among other things, purchase health insurance from a select group of companies.

 

[GhostWriter16]

One thing I find ironic is that the younger generation tends to support the very liberal policies that are going to screw their so life hard and its the older folks like me who have so many free ponies coming down the pike that fights so hard against them.

Because in the end, you younguns will be my debt slaves. Thanks in advance.

I'm in for hope at 55-70% but the court lets me down on all the big ones (cept 2004) so I am being wildly optimistic.

Gladly 17 and conservative

Hope so in case I should return, but I'd say in general the likelihood is at least 75% that it'll be overturned. I'm no constitutional scholar (nor is the president, as it seems) but I don't know how the federal government can seriously consider mandating the American people, among other things, purchase health insurance from a select group of companies.

Agreed.