MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Arturas -> MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 11:48:24 AM)

MSNBCs website headline: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate

Duh.

So, what happens next? When the mandate is declared illegal under the Consitution then one has to wonder about the agenda and capabilities of a President who spent two years delivering a health care plan that depends on a mandate that is unconstitutional. Why risk something so important on something so very obviously illegal? Arrogance? Fantasy? Chicago style politics? Community Organizer outlook?

Perhaps all the above but for sure it spells the end of his only term in office and one that is a complete failure, nothing accomplished and much lost in terms of money, time, jobs and Americas standing in the world.

So, what now? Well, we still need a health care plan and one that will actually work without being illegal. THe GOP takes power in November and with this upcoming ruling, America gives both houses to the GOP who then get right to work repealing the dead horse and on the plan they have been working on for several years now, one that will cut healthcare costs by cutting waste and making insurance more affordable and more attractive to more citizens, more attractive than having to go to the ER for treatement, and is legal and takes away no liberties and rights of Americans, it does not force free men and women to buy something simpy because they are alive and in America which is the case under Obamacare.

Soon as the most Reverend Al Sharpton stops attacking the Supreme Court, he started yesterday btw, he accused the court of underminding Obama and giving the election to the GOP, seriously, I suppose because he saw the writing on the wall late yesterday, soon as he stops then we (all) can devote our time and energy to rebuilding and making up for lost time. Also, we need to bring all the troops home, pay for Obama's past spending and get China off our backs and also drill baby drill so gas prices go down and we need zero Middle East Oil. Also, we need to send Obama the bill for Solendra (ok, maybe not but we really need that money back somehow....)




Iamsemisweet -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 1:12:02 PM)

And yet, I can find a news source that says just the opposite:

The U.S. Supreme Court has begun hearing arguments in a crucial case that will decide whether President Barack Obama’s signature health-care legislation will stand or fall. And with three days of hearings scheduled this week – and a court ruling in June – whatever the court decides will have an impact on the presidential campaign in a year when Mr. Obama faces an uphill struggle to win a second term. Deep dissatisfaction with the law has been pretty consistent: 52 per cent oppose Mr. Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll in early March. A New York Times/CBS News poll released Monday shows 47 per cent disapprove of the law, while 36 per cent approve.

And while no one imagines the U.S. Supreme Court’s nine justices reading the latest polls, it is worth noting that 50 per cent of likely voters surveyed by The Hill, which covers U.S. congressional politics, want to see the court strike down the health-care legislation. And about the same percentage expect Supreme Court justices – appointed by various Republican and Democratic presidents – to be swayed by their political beliefs.

The expectation is that the court will be split 4-4 between the left and right blocs, and that Justice Anthony Kennedy – the court’s swing vote – will likely decide the fate of key aspects of Mr. Obama’s health-care legislation.

But what do the lawyers who have argued cases before the Supreme Court and the former clerks who have knowledge of the court’s inner-workings think about how the judges will decide on the legal challenge to the health-care law?

A survey released Monday morning by the American Action Forum (aligned to the Republican party) and the Blue Dog Research Forum (aligned to the Democratic party), suggests the court is likely to uphold key pillars of the health-care law.

The survey of 43 former Supreme Court clerks – 12 of whom clerked for the left bloc, 21 of whom clerked for the right bloc, and 10 of whom clerked for the swing vote, Justice Kennedy – and 23 Supreme Court lawyers is a small but significant sample and by no means the final word on how the judges are likely to decide on the key constitutional challenges to the health-care law. But it is an interesting window in to the court from those who have considerable knowledge of the judges who will be deciding.

On the likelihood that the ‘individual mandate,’ which requires all Americans to purchase health-care insurance by 2014, will be struck down by a majority of Supreme Court justices on the basis of it being unconstitutional: 35 per cent of those surveyed said it was probable. “The only way to strike down the individual mandate would be to overrule decades of precedent going back to the New Deal,” said one of the survey respondents. “That’d be a welcome step, in my view, but it’s one that the Court simply won’t take.”

Another respondent commented: “I don’t think this will be nearly as close a case as conventional wisdom now has it. I think the Court will uphold the statute by a lopsided majority.”

By striking down the ‘individual mandate,’ some have argued that the Supreme Court justices would overturn the entire health-care law.

Only 27 per cent of former clerks and Supreme Court lawyers believed that a majority of judges would come to this conclusion, while 36 per cent of those surveyed believed that Supreme Court judges were likely to argue that the ‘individual mandate’ could be separated from the overall health-care law. In this scenario, the ‘individual mandate’ could be struck down and the rest of the health-care law allowed to stand.

The U.S. Supreme Court is also hearing a constitutional challenge to the health-care law’s expansion of Medicaid, which requires states to provide subsidized health-care to 17 million low-income Americans.

Once again, most of the former clerks and Supreme Court lawyers surveyed said it was not likely that the court would rule the expansion of Medicaid as unconstitutional, whereas 19 per cent said it was probable.

Mr. Obama’s controversial health-care law has been the target of every Republican presidential candidate, all of whom have promised to repeal Obamacare if elected president. And, in what many have described as a strategic shift, the Obama campaign has embraced the Obamacare label, with official campaign tweeting under the hashtag “#ilikeobamacare.” Last week, chief campaign strategist David Axelrod also contributed to the ’rebranding’ of the law when he sent an email to supporters: “Hell yeah, I like Obamacare,” read the subject line.




PatrickG38 -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 1:38:26 PM)

I confess it appears I gave the Supreme Court too much credit and respect in expecting them to uphold legislation that had survived the toughest political battle of my lifetime and regulates not just commerce, but a market that is almost a fifth of the American economy. Justice Alito with characteristic silliness asked whether the government could force people to buy burial insurance since everyone dies. It is a facile analogy and should have been answered thusly, “If there were a national problem with unburied bodies, certainly.” (I am not criticizing the Solicitor General’s responses, I do appellate argument and it is one of the toughest things in the profession). In the end the law will probably still be upheld by a 5-4 vote, but the lesson is one Republicans will not enjoy. That next time you try to adapt a system to be market friendly and allow choice, don’t. Just have a simple tax or national coverage (there would be no constitutional question). As Lawrence Tribe has posited, it would unquestionably be constitutional for the government to collect a tax and purchase private insurance for its citizens; so, why is this single step procedure any less constitutional. I have now completely finished the transcript and will say the attorney for the states, Paul D. Clement, did an excellent job, but he most interesting part was Sotomayor’s evisceration of Michael Carvin, attorney for the National Federation of Independent Businesses. I attached the transcript for the absurdly curious and am now thinking Roberts might be a sixth vote.




PatrickG38 -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 1:43:44 PM)

Ooops. forgot link

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Tuesday.pdf




MrRodgers -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 2:27:12 PM)

Scalia, Roberts among others from the right, have voted that the govt. has such power...when it suited them.

They claim to seek and practice Stare decisis...when it suits them. We'll see hey...there is plenty of precedent affirming this power in court rulings.

Taxes are purposefully special so for example the young can be 'mandated' to pay for medicare...they do not enjoy.

Seems under the selective service act, those that once having attained the age of 18 are 'mandated' to register for something called the draft which is another federal law that (when in effect ) 'mandates' one appear before tribunal and be inducted into the military (involuntary servitude to the state, forced to sign away many constitutional rights) and 'mandated' to fight.

The entire argument is vulgar and one of politics only. This will simply seed the rights counter in the future swing toward a single payer system, from the rest of the country.




DomKen -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 2:42:00 PM)

Chief Justice Roberts is many thing but a fool isn't one. His court is going to punt this for 2+ years by invoking the law saying courts can't litigate on a tax until someone has paid it. Then around 2017 or 2018 SCOTUS will up hold the law if anyone bothers appealing all the way again.

Ruling against the law with the overwhelming precedent in its favor makes the court appear even more partisan than it is already viewed to be which would further weaken the Court's power and prestige, leading to amongst other things a successful court stacking during the President's secod term which would render Roberts irrelevant.




FatDomDaddy -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 3:05:47 PM)

Roberts is in his mid 50s. He will be around another 30-35 years easy. No matter where he falls, he'll hardly be rendered irrelevant.

But by all mean... go count your chickens




Owner59 -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 3:31:29 PM)

As far as I`m concerned,the mandate can be tossed....no issue there.


It`s hardly anything anyway and won`t effect the hard fought reforms.


Cons seem to think this is a big deal/everything......but iy`s really one tiny part of the whole package.


And it was originally, a GOP condition to signing on......that`s right......it was a GOP idea.......they wanted and Obama consented to........ in the early negotiations......when the cons were pretending to be cooperative and on-board.


Maybe they thought is was/would be a poison-pill they could exploit later (as they are now) but it really won`t effect the healthcare reform act.




Yachtie -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 3:45:43 PM)

All this wrangling over Obamacare. The economy is going to trash it in short order. Can't have what can't be paid for.

Not even SCOTUS has the power to rule the unsustainable sustainable. Now a court can rule that 2+2=5, but it just ain't so.




Owner59 -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 3:56:28 PM)

Ummmm Unless hospitals and REs are going to turn people away......the money will be spent and someone will pick up the tab.


So where will the cons warehouse the sick and dying that they aren`t going to treat or care for?



We`ll call them "Scalia Dying Houses".....that thin-skinned fat fuck will love it.[:D]




Yachtie -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 4:25:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Ummmm Unless hospitals and REs are going to turn people away......the money will be spent and someone will pick up the tab.



The money? What money do you refer to?

I'm sure you believe that the money required for what you believe to be necessary shall magically be available. But I assure you, such shall not happen. SCOTUS can rule however it likes, but what you want cannot be paid for.




Owner59 -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 4:58:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Ummmm Unless hospitals and REs are going to turn people away......the money will be spent and someone will pick up the tab.



The money? What money do you refer to?

I'm sure you believe that the money required for what you believe to be necessary shall magically be available. But I assure you, such shall not happen. SCOTUS can rule however it likes, but what you want cannot be paid for.


The money states give to hospitals for services that aren`t payed for by the broke patient(s).

Don`t play dumb

The "mandate" is for the uninsured.

Who`s going to pay when they get sick/hurt?

Now unless you cons plan on dumping sick somewhere(other than a hospital)someone will have to pay for those services.




slvemike4u -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 5:04:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Roberts is in his mid 50s. He will be around another 30-35 years easy. No matter where he falls, he'll hardly be rendered irrelevant.

But by all mean... go count your chickens

I think he counted rather well...this is going to be punted down the line.
No standing till someone is actually "affected" by having to pay ,or by being fined.




slvemike4u -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 5:06:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

As far as I`m concerned,the mandate can be tossed....no issue there.


It`s hardly anything anyway and won`t effect the hard fought reforms.


Cons seem to think this is a big deal/everything......but iy`s really one tiny part of the whole package.


And it was originally, a GOP condition to signing on......that`s right......it was a GOP idea.......they wanted and Obama consented to........ in the early negotiations......when the cons were pretending to be cooperative and on-board.


Maybe they thought is was/would be a poison-pill they could exploit later (as they are now) but it really won`t effect the healthcare reform act.


The mandate is actually what makes everything else work Owner.
Remove the mandate and the whole thing falls like a house of cards.
That's why it will be punted




Owner59 -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 5:13:20 PM)

I don`t agree so we`ll see




DomKen -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 5:17:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

All this wrangling over Obamacare. The economy is going to trash it in short order. Can't have what can't be paid for.

Not even SCOTUS has the power to rule the unsustainable sustainable. Now a court can rule that 2+2=5, but it just ain't so.

The ACA, according to every non partisan examination, saves a lot of money over the old status quo.




xssve -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 5:56:15 PM)

Public option!




Iamsemisweet -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 6:11:08 PM)

If the Supremes strike down the mandate, then the requirement that hospital emergency rooms treat all comers needs to be repealed.  It is a huge expense for the rest of us who pay for medical services and insurance.  If this country is determined that medical care be every man for himself, then so be it.




xssve -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 6:25:33 PM)

'Bout sums it up, I don't really like it either, the public option would have been much easier - how are unemployed and homeless people supposed to buy health insurance? What happens if you miss a payment? It's gonna be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Shit, I just paid $700 in fines for letting my truck insurance lapse.




Owner59 -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/27/2012 6:35:44 PM)

[image]http://imgs.sfgate.com/g/pictures/2009/07/22/david-horsey-Cartoon20090722.jpg[/image]




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625