Supreme Court May Ultimately Decide Fate of Obamacare

Supreme Court May Ultimately Decide Fate of Obamacare

www.washingtontimes.com

The same Supreme Court justices whom President Obama blasted during his State of the Union address this year may ultimately decide the fate of his crowning achievement as more than a dozen states have called on the courts to strike down the health insurance mandate of Democrats' health care overhaul - a move that would threaten the entire law.

Two major constitutional challenges have been levied against the new law, one by the state of Virginia, which enacted a law exempting its citizens from the federal health insurance mandate, and another by Florida and 12 other states. Legal scholars a

(visit the link for the full news article)

No matter how you look at it their health care bill is unconstitutional and illegal. I covered it in these threads

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


The courts are not enough. Look at who sits at the head of the supreme court. all most are calling for depopulation(or some form of eugenics), voted for the elimination of our memorandum rights(Google it) Or in Heption VS AT&T voted for AT&t.


www.washingtontimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

And I am calling it right now. One SC conservative nominee will step down and a new one will come in to uphold it. This is just my call though.

reply to post by Vinveezy


I think perhaps there are several previous rulings made by The SCOTUS, that if they were to uphold this Bill as Constitutional, they would necessarily have to overturn other rulings in order to come to that conclusion. The Supreme Court has held up the states rights and vociferously so, but they have also consistently upheld the individuals right to informed consent. Consider just one ruling held fairly recently by The SCOTUS, in Cruzan v. Director of Missouri Department of Health, where the Court upholds both states and individual rights in the same ruling, and over the fundamental right of informed consent.

If this ever gets to The Supreme Court, meaning it may be repealed before such a thing could happen, The SCOTUS is more than likely to strike the Bill down as unconstitutional for its compulsory nature regarding private health decisions.

They say you reap what you sow.....looks like the chickens are coming home to roost. I wonder what the excuse will be when /if they do shoot it down. The administration has to have some clue already as to what they will say. I'm still not sure this all wasn't directed towards the November elections anyways.

Yes I expect no less, the challenge was already in the table before the bill became a reality.

When Hilary wanted to work in the Universal health care back in the 90s the Republicans said that it could not be done do to its constitutionality.

Now we got a bill that was written no only by private insurance companies lawyers but it takes away the freedom of choices of the citizens in the nation and also force free citizens to support financially by mandate private business.

While this just for the HCR it also bring a big challenge to the tax payer, as our own government is run by big corporations they can keep passing laws to force citizens on anything else by mandate.

Dangerous territory here.

I know you put this in Breaking Political News but this was out yesterday morning.

and on here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

At most...and this is a very very big MAYBE...they will strike down the mandate...not the entire bill.

And without the mandate...but still with no pre-existing conditions...the bill can't function as it is supposed to. One of two things will happen and the end result will be similar...and ironicly neither that republicans would want...insurance companies will go out of business and in will come single payer...or premiums will sky rocket, no one will be able to afford insurance and the government will be forced to offer a public option or a medicare buy in.


So actually...I hope they go ahead and we either get single payer or a public option...both are good in my mind.

Thanks republicans.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I agree, that without the "mandate" the bill will be wasted, as we know now that the mandate and killing the public option was the main goal of the private insurance business that worked in the HCR.



[edit on 30-3-2010 by marg6043]

Well, when the supreme court says, something is a law, it is a law. All they have to do, is get together, and say, its illegal to force everyone in america to have health insurance if its not what they want or in thier interests. each person has a right, under constitutional rights, to choose as they please, not as government sees fit.
its that easy...maybe they cant strike down a presidential bill, but they can make a law to curbtail it

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
At most...and this is a very very big MAYBE...they will strike down the mandate...not the entire bill.

And without the mandate...but still with no pre-existing conditions...the bill can't function as it is supposed to. One of two things will happen and the end result will be similar...and ironicly neither that republicans would want...insurance companies will go out of business and in will come single payer...or premiums will sky rocket, no one will be able to afford insurance and the government will be forced to offer a public option or a medicare buy in.


So actually...I hope they go ahead and we either get single payer or a public option...both are good in my mind.

Thanks republicans.

They wouldnt strike down the entire law but 3 points of it which makes the rest useless.

1st strike down the mandate for people to carry insurance.

2nd this strikes down employer mandate to provide insurance.

3rd they will inform the government they dont have the right to stop banks from providing student loans.

With these 3 changes the law will need to be re written and congress will probably strike the law to start over again so they dont have to try to amend it.

reply to post by dragonridr


I agree, but the longer it takes for this issue to reach the supreme court the death line for the government to work on the budget deficit will come.

Once the budget deficit comes to pass, any strikes against the HCR will actually kill the bill entirely as the budget deficit bills to be use to work with by the finance committee will nullified any additional debt.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


There are several previous rulings by the SCOTUS that would uphold this aspect of the bill as well. Medicare and Social Security would have to be elminated if this was deemed unconstitutional. It's a question of the commerce clause for this, which has been held to the belief that the federal government can do pretty much whatever it wants in interstate-economic terms. If not, we wouldn't have many of the 'New Deal' programs we have now.

While it's unlikely that the Supreme Court will deem the mandate unconstitutional it's not out of the question when a majority of the court are conservatives.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

There are several previous rulings by the SCOTUS that would uphold this aspect of the bill as well. Medicare and Social Security would have to be elminated if this was deemed unconstitutional. It's a question of the commerce clause for this, which has been held to the belief that the federal government can do pretty much whatever it wants in interstate-economic terms. If not, we wouldn't have many of the 'New Deal' programs we have now.

While it's unlikely that the Supreme Court will deem the mandate unconstitutional it's not out of the question when a majority of the court are conservatives.

Of those "several previous rulings by SCOTUS that would uphold this aspect of the bill as well", can you cite one Case held by the SCOTUS to support your claim?

Medicare and Social Security are not legislate in the way this most recent Bill has been, and neither Medicare nor Social Security mandate a person do business with a private company and purchase health insurance. There is no comparison between them, and it won't stand as a legal argument in a court of law.

While Congress may be defending their actions by citing the Commerce Clause, no Court has ever upheld Congress' right to mandate the purchase of a private product as part of their regulatory authority. There is no legal precedence of any such authority, and given that so many fundamental rights, including the right to informed consent, are being abrogated and derogated by this Bill, your assumption that it is "unlikely" that SCOTUS will deem the mandate unconstitutional is without any sound legal reasoning or merit.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Gonzalez v. Raich is one where the commerce clause has been applied to the ruling, while not directly relating to health care "Justice Scalia found that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to regulate even non-economic activities if it believes that this is necessary to make its regulation of interstate commerce effective."

Doug Kmiec, a former Reagan administration Justice Department official, and conservative legal scholar, echoes that view. "The idea that a regulatory requirement (whether to purchase insurance or to purchase a smoke alarm) violates the Constitution by exceeding the scope of the commerce power was rejected in the age when Robert Fulton's steam ships were at the center of case controversy and the proposition has not gained validity with the passage into the 21st century."

Source: Could SCOTUS Be The Death Panel For Health Care Reform?

I have mentioned before where the federal government made it a requirement to purchase private goods. When George Washington required all men of age to purchase rifles, ammunition, powder and such in 1792 and join the militia. This holds true today in joining the selective service once you turn 18, though you don't have to supply your own rifle anymore.

I stand by the belief that the bill will be upheld by the supreme court. As the TPM article mentions "There's another problem with the lawsuit. Many judges are often reluctant to hear a challenge to a law until it has actually gone into effect -- what legal types call a "ripeness" issue. The individual mandate won't go into effect until 2014 -- by which time factors like the composition of the Supreme Court, and the underlying politics driving the lawsuit, may well have changed. "

So we all may have to wait until at least 2014 to hear what the high court has to say.

reply to post by links234


One thing is regulation and mandates for businesses and another one mandates for private citizens to support commerce while limiting choices.

When Hilary proposed her idea of National health care in 1993 it was strike down by the majority Republican because even they agree at the time that is was unconstitutional and easily challenged in court.

So yes the HCR can be challenged and it will.

As my friend above said, you are deluding yourself at best. They can't strike down the healthcare bill, they may be able to strike the mandatory provision but I don't think so. You have to buy car insurance don't you and what about the feds forcing speed limits on highways. I think there are precedents for this already in place. These states suing are wasting your money on a case they already know they can't win. I wonder why.

reply to post by damwel


The bill will go to the supreme court and we will see what the outcome will be.

Just remember that you pay for insurance if you have a car, if you don't drive you don't have to have it and are not forced to buy one either.

No matter how you sliced is not the same, that is how the car insurance has not been challenged.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

There are several previous rulings by the SCOTUS that would uphold this aspect of the bill as well. Medicare and Social Security would have to be elminated if this was deemed unconstitutional. It's a question of the commerce clause for this, which has been held to the belief that the federal government can do pretty much whatever it wants in interstate-economic terms. If not, we wouldn't have many of the 'New Deal' programs we have now.

While it's unlikely that the Supreme Court will deem the mandate unconstitutional it's not out of the question when a majority of the court are conservatives.

I disagree entirely! Neither Medicare nor SS are PRIVATE companies. Their funding relies on withholding TAXES, not fines. The Commerce Clause permites the federal government to REGULATE (meaning to "Keep regular") commerce between and among the several states. Since healthcare is INTRA-state, NOT INTER- state commerce the Clause does NOT apply. Secondly, commerce is defined as an activity where money is exchanged for a good or service. Since people NOT purchasing healthcare have NOT engaged in commerce, the federal government has ZERO jurisdiction on the matter.

Originally posted by damwel
As my friend above said, you are deluding yourself at best. They can't strike down the healthcare bill, they may be able to strike the mandatory provision but I don't think so. You have to buy car insurance don't you and what about the feds forcing speed limits on highways. I think there are precedents for this already in place. These states suing are wasting your money on a case they already know they can't win. I wonder why.

I see you haven't been following the discussions on the matter. That's ok, I'll help you.

First of all... Car Insurance. Car insurance is mandated by the individual states, not the federal government. There are states that presently do NOT require a licensed driver to carry car insurance, NH is one of them!

Next, the federal mandate on speed limits... This one is tricky and extremely tenuous legalese was used to implement this one. First, highways are part of the INTERSTATE transportation system originally funded and built by the federal government. Since most states receive the bulk of their transporation Dept budgets from federal funds, the federal government essentially BRIBED each state's legislature into passing "Standards" that were compliant with federal standards under threat of withholding the funds. The state of OHio went through a lengthy battle with the federal government over the seatbelt mandate and the drinking age increase. Both times, the federal government withheld massive transportation dept. funding until state standards were brought up to federal standards. They were NOT required under law to do so, they were COMPELLED to do so under threat of withholding funds!