Supremes will strike down Obamacare?

[Ayatollah So]

Rate the probability in one of these ranges; also, whether you hope they do strike it down. For the purposes of this poll, striking down just the individual mandate plus the requirement that insurers cover regardless of pre-existing conditions, counts as striking it down.

Edit: I'm splitting by hope so vs hope not, in order to see if everyone thinks "any idiot can see the thing is (un)constitutional (insert your own bias here), so of course the Supremes will so rule".

 

[KaiserElectric]

They should, but they won't. Nowadays, I get the impression that the Supreme Court makes decisions based on their politics, not whether or not an act is constitutional.

Just for the record, my diocese is also very concerned with the new law, as the church would be required to provide birth control medication and other medical procedures that go against the teachings of the church. Whether or not you agree, that does constitute an infringement on freedom of religion.

 

[JollyRoger]

There are 4 solid votes for upholding the mandate. One solid vote for not upholding it. Four are unknown. My prediction - Roberts writes a majority opinion to uphold, supported by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito in dissent. 6-3.

 

[illram]

Yeah Roberts is the not so obvious alternate-wildcard here. (Kennedy being the defacto swing) He had some interesting comments today. Him and Kennedy have made comments stating that they understand the importance of the mandate to the overall package. Reading the tea leaves in a Judge's questioning during oral argument is not always a great way to predict the future though.

I'd say there are 2 definite No votes--Scalia and Thomas. It is definitely a lot gloomier than some predicted when these lawsuits all started.

 

[Ayatollah So]

After seeing the tortured legal "reasoning" of Bush vs Gore, I begin to expect that highly politicized issues will elicit highly politicized decisions. But more on my so-called thought process, later. Poll's up. Jolly, "6-3 uphold" is where you place the single biggest likelihood, but what probability would you assign to "at least 5-4 to strike down"?

 

[JollyRoger]

The interesting thing about today's argument is that the mandate seems necessary for the other parts of the law to stand which undercuts the day 2 arguments that it doesn't fit within the necessary & proper clause.

After seeing the tortured legal "reasoning" of Bush vs Gore, I begin to expect that highly politicized issues will elicit highly politicized decisions. But more on my so-called thought process, later. Poll's up. Jolly, "6-3 uphold" is where you place the single biggest likelihood, but what probability would you assign to "at least 5-4 to strike down"?

Too close to call. 46% to 54%. I think it will be either 5-4 to strike down or 6-3 to uphold. I do not think it will be 5-4 to uphold.

 

[JollyRoger]

Duplicate

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm hoping, I'm optimistic, but I don't know. 54-70 I guess? And I'm really hoping so. I'm not finding much to like about this law.

 

[caketastydelish]

When the constitution was written, slavery was legal and women had far less rights. Once we admit that the founding fathers weren't perfect, we'll all be a lot better off.

"Obama care" as neo-cons call it, is not socialism, although it should be. At least it's a step in the right direction.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Irrelevant. SCOTUS has ZERO right to vote based on their own opinions. ZERO. Tenth Amendment automatically takes this power. "No" votes should win nine to none.

 

[JollyRoger]

Irrelevant. SCOTUS has ZERO right to vote based on their own opinions. ZERO. Tenth Amendment automatically takes this power. "No" votes should win nine to none.

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).

 

[caketastydelish]

Irrelevant. SCOTUS has ZERO right to vote based on their own opinions. ZERO. Tenth Amendment automatically takes this power. "No" votes should win nine to none.

How is it irrelevant? The supreme court has made changes from the original document before, they're called amendments. Anyway, the point I was making was the original document was created by the founding fathers, who were not perfect. They are worshiped like mindless robots- and they had their good points I admit. But that doesn't mean they were perfect, and therefore we are not "stuck" with what they choose.

And we have had amendments for the sole purpose of contradicting earlier amendments. to name one: Alcohol.

If a person is perfectly healthy, it is a lot easier for them to be against this than someone who is sick and has no way to pay for their care.

 

[Angst]

Showing up and saying it:

Please don't screw this up, America.

 

[Cutlass]

Irrelevant. SCOTUS has ZERO right to vote based on their own opinions. ZERO.

The conservatives only vote their opinions or their politics. They never vote the letter of the Constitution. And neither would you.

 

[GhostWriter16]

How is it irrelevant? The supreme court has made changes from the original document before, they're called amendments. Anyway, the point I was making was the original document was created by the founding fathers, who were not perfect. They are worshiped like mindless robots- and they had their good points I admit. But that doesn't mean they were perfect, and therefore we are not "stuck" with what they choose.

And we have had amendments for the sole purpose of contradicting earlier amendments. to name one: Alcohol.

If a person is perfectly healthy, it is a lot easier for them to be against this than someone who is sick and has no way to pay for their care.

Amendment =/= Supreme Court decision, the former can actually change the Law, not the rather.

The conservatives only vote their opinions or their politics. They never vote the letter of the Constitution. And neither would you.

Expound on this.

 

[JollyRoger]

The 10th Amendment does not trump the Commerce Clause, the tax clause, or the necessary & proper clause, all of which are construed fairly broadly.

 

[Core Imposter]

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.

 

[tycoonist]

Expound on this.

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.

 

[History_Buff]

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...

Except for the part where these sorts of policies work pretty much perfectly throughout the Western world?

Like it or not, America is in dire need of reform. Campaign finance is an absolute must, which likely includes a reversal of Citizens United, either by decision or amendment. Financial re-regulation is the next big one. Healthcare reform has been overdue for 30 years. After that it's probably patents and copyrights.

 

[Cutlass]

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.

Funny how it is that the conservatives are the ones crippling the fiscal and economic future of the country.