Will the SCOTUS rule Obamacare to be constitutional or not?

Will the SCOTUS rule Obamacare constitutional?

  • Total voters
    0
#1
gsvol

gsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
14,179
Likes
11
#1
??




FWIW, I am in favor of nothing from which Congress and the President and his secretaries may exempt themselves, that seems to me to be unconstitutional on the face of it.
 
#2
#2
depends on what justice kennedy has for breakfast the morning of their vote
 
#4
#4
I think they're going to uphold it, and it won't take more than five or six years until 80% of the country regrets that decision.
 
#5
#5
Socialized healthcare is going to be a fact of life in the US... Whether Obama institutes it or some other president down the line we can all look forward to a decimated healthcare system in the near future. Don't give me any crap about how great it works in Norway or some other European country... Their population numbers (or should I say lack thereof...) insures that ther won't be a glut of folks waiting in line for aspirin while others die for lack of "real" treatment... Not to mention that qualified existing Doctors will either retire in droves or young folks currently considering the medical profession will look elsewhere....
 
#6
#6
bluetickhound16 said:
Socialized healthcare is going to be a fact of life in the US... Whether Obama institutes it or some other president down the line we can all look forward to a decimated healthcare system in the near future. Don't give me any crap about how great it works in Norway or some other European country... Their population numbers (or should I say lack thereof...) insures that ther won't be a glut of folks waiting in line for aspirin while others die for lack of "real" treatment... Not to mention that qualified existing Doctors will either retire in droves or young folks currently considering the medical profession will look elsewhere....
Click to expand...


We already have socialized medicine for a huge portion of the population (Medicare). Seems to be working okay.
 
#8
#8
what should be unconstitutional is passing bills no one has read and outright lies about the real costs. However dictating someone purchase an item simply because they are breathing is wrong
 
#10
#10
lawgator1 said:
We already have socialized medicine for a huge portion of the population (Medicare). Seems to be working okay.
Click to expand...

Actually, and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Medicare only apply to a small percentage of the population and isn't it nearly bankrupt as is?
 
#11
#11
Allowing Federal judges to determine a dispute between the Federal government and a state is like a minor league team playing the Yankees, and Girardi gets to select and pay the umpire crew.
 
#12
#12
davethevol said:
Actually, and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Medicare only apply to a small percentage of the population and isn't it nearly bankrupt as is?
Click to expand...

W added some astronomical number to unfunded liabilities through medicare spending. It was something like $19 trillion.

Medicare is wealth redistribution at its best. The elderly are the wealthiest demographic, but they are politically powerful, and that's why they get free goodies.
 
#13
#13
GAVol said:
Not according to the Doctors.
Click to expand...


They want to be paid more. I'm stunned.

But if it weren't for Medicare, the ERs would be filled with old people needing basic primary care, or advanced care, with no means to pay for it.
 
#17
#17
lawgator1 said:
They want to be paid more. I'm stunned.

But if it weren't for Medicare, the ERs would be filled with old people needing basic primary care, or advanced care, with no means to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Crowding the ER demanding viagra so they can have boners. Damn them! What would they do without Medicare??!!
 
#19
#19
GAVol said:
Not according to the Doctors.
Click to expand...

My next door neighbor's daughter fell and dislocated her shoulder and broke her upper arm, she was taken to the hospital and admitted.

After she already had and IV in her arm the doctor came in and refused to accept her insurance.

(My guess it may have been Tenncare), then the hospital turned her out and she had to endure severe pain and suffering for about three days until arrangements could be made to treat her in another hospital.

There she went through a two hour operation to reconstruct her upper arm and rotor cuff during which they put in several scrws to hold it together.

You'll see a lot more stories like that if Obamacare is implemented.

You'll also see our personal income tax rate go over 50% of gross income no matter what bracket you are in, sooner rather than later.

fail_obama_overachiever.jpg
 
#21
#21
volinbham said:
really no idea on how this is going to go down other than 5-4
Click to expand...

Possibly not. Some conservative judges that have been on the short list for the SCOTUS have already written support of the constitutionality of the bill (while disagreeing with the provisions within it). I think it may turn out 6-3 in support.
 
#22
#22
milohimself said:
Possibly not. Some conservative judges that have been on the short list for the SCOTUS have already written support of the constitutionality of the bill (while disagreeing with the provisions within it). I think it may turn out 6-3 in support.
Click to expand...

From what I have read, some conservative judges have ruled it is constitutional based on existing SC precedent (such as Raich) but that they would not have ruled it so if they had not been bound by precedent. Which of course, SCOTUS is not.
 
#23
#23
RespectTradition said:
From what I have read, some conservative judges have ruled it is constitutional based on existing SC precedent (such as Raich) but that they would not have ruled it so if they had not been bound by precedent. Which of course, SCOTUS is not.
Click to expand...

Worth a read:

Cry, the Beloved Constitution
By J. HARVIE WILKINSON III
Published: March 11, 2012

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va.

BOTH liberals and conservatives have the American Constitution in the cross hairs. They assault the Constitution in their different ways, each with damaging effects on our nation. Conservatives attack the courts on one hand and seek to have them advance their activist agenda on the other. Liberals, when it suits them, embrace rights that have not been enumerated in the Constitution and cry for restraint only when their pet bills come under fire. The result is a national jurisprudence whetted by political appetite, with our democratic values as the victims.

Conservatives increasingly bemoan Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, as illustrated by the debate over the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that individuals buy health insurance. They argue that Congress can only regulate activity, not inactivity, and so when it gets involved in a decision by a consumer to not purchase health care, it is going far beyond its reach.

If only it were that simple.

As a political argument, that resonates: “Don’t Tread On Me” trumpets the imperishable spirit of American liberty. But as a constitutional argument, it would imbue judges with unprecedented powers to topple an exhaustively debated and duly enacted federal law and to make the determination that the decision not to buy ice cream can be neatly severed from the decision to buy chocolate or vanilla.

In curbing federal excess, courts risk lessening our national economic strength. That strength resides partly in the national aspects of our founding document, among them the now maligned commerce clause and the newly mistrusted supremacy clause, which gives preference to federal over state law when there is a conflict. States’ rights are important in many spheres, but the benefits of a national economic policy must also be considered. A vibrant economic order requires some political predictability, and the prospect of judges’ striking down commercial regulation on ill-defined and subjective bases is a prescription for economic chaos that the framers, in a simpler time, had the good sense to head off.

It is tempting to shout states’ rights when deeply flawed federal legislation is enacted, but the momentary satisfactions of that exercise carry long-term constitutional costs. Badly conceived bills die a thousand political deaths — in the appropriations process, in the states, through electoral retribution, in the executive appointments of a succeeding administration and ultimately in amendment and repeal. However, if courts read the Constitution in such a way that it enables them to make Congress ineffectual, and instead to promote 50 state regulatory regimes in an era of rapidly mounting global challenges, the risks should escape no one. Making our charter more parochial while other nations flex their economic muscle seems like poor timing.

Liberals are mounting their own, equally damaging, assault on the Constitution. They have forsaken the textual and historical foundations of that document in favor of judicially decreed rights of autonomy. It is one thing to value those rights our cherished Bill of Rights sets forth. But to create rights from whole cloth is to turn one’s back on law.

Just like the opponents of the Affordable Care Act, the proponents of reproductive choice and same-sex marriage have strong arguments — but they are political, not constitutional. What are the consequences when liberals shortchange democratic liberty in favor of judicial expansion of unenumerated personal rights? Well, for one, creating constitutional rights without foundation frays the community fabric and, with it, the very notion that the majority can enact into law some expression of shared values that make ours a society whose whole is more than the sum of its parts. In pushing a constitutional vision of autonomous individuals divested of location in larger social settings, liberals risk weakening the communal values and institutions that best afford our most disadvantaged the chance for a good life.

At a time of dismay over democratic dysfunction, the temptation to ask courts to supplant self-governance runs high. And yet when I look past the present debacle, and think of where democracy has brought this country, I would not lose faith.

The risks of continuing our present constitutional course are grave. One faction risks damage to the nation at large, the other to the vital roles of smaller communities. All factions owe their fellow citizens the hope and the prospect of democratic change, not the message that their views have been constitutionally condemned and their opponents’ views carved in the stone of our founding charter. Restraint has much to commend it as a judicial value, not least of which is that it extends the hand of tolerance and respect to those whose views we may not share, but whose citizenship we do share and whose love of family, community and country burns no less brightly than our own.

J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, is the author of “Cosmic Constitutional Theory: Why Americans Are Losing Their Inalienable Right to Self-Governance.”
Click to expand...
 
#24
#24
milohimself said:
Possibly not. Some conservative judges that have been on the short list for the SCOTUS have already written support of the constitutionality of the bill (while disagreeing with the provisions within it). I think it may turn out 6-3 in support.
Click to expand...

BTW, have you been hiding lately? Seems like I haven't seen you around these parts in weeks.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top