PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court to strike down individual mandate


Mtn.man
06-20-2012, 08:43
The Supreme Court will soon announce its ruling on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care law passed in 2010, and for many legal observers who have worked in the court and argued cases before the justices, the federal government's defense of the measure in March did not inspire confidence

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/insider-poll-legal-experts-now-expect-supreme-court-123441478.html
Zundfolge
06-20-2012, 08:46
If they strike down the individual mandate without striking down the entire law we are good and deeply fucked.

It won't work without the mandate (well it won't work WITH the mandate either, but without it'll destroy the insurance and health care industries overnight FORCING the fed.gov to nationalize health care).
Ridge
06-20-2012, 08:55
If they strike down the individual mandate without striking down the entire law we are good and deeply fucked.

It won't work without the mandate (well it won't work WITH the mandate either, but without it'll destroy the insurance and health care industries overnight FORCING the fed.gov to nationalize health care).

I thought that because of the way the bill was written, it cannot stand if part of it is stricken down? So the whole bill would fail?
Zundfolge
06-20-2012, 09:01
I thought that because of the way the bill was written, it cannot stand if part of it is stricken down? So the whole bill would fail?
There is no sever-ability clause for the individual mandate in the law (because it was rushed together ... thank God for the incompetence of these wannabe tyrants). So if we were still the constitutional republic we were designed to be it would be a no-brainer and the whole law would be tossed. But since Wickard v. Filburn - 1942 its been a crap shoot. Sometimes they uphold the Constitution ... sometimes they piss on it (couple of recent examples are Heller and Kelo ... one clearly constitutional, the other ... piss).

Once the law becomes unpredictable, liberty dies and tyranny reigns. For the last 70 years law has been unpredictable.
yankeefan98121
06-20-2012, 09:55
I thought that because of the way the bill was written, it cannot stand if part of it is stricken down? So the whole bill would fail?

That's how I understood it as well [Coffee]

Either way it's just an insider poll and not official
68Charger
06-20-2012, 09:58
keep in mind, this is a poll of people that USED to work for some SC justices...

wait for the real decision to come down.
Sharpienads
06-20-2012, 10:03
That's how I understood it as well [Coffee]

Yeah, me too. However, the way I understand the Constitution, this bill should have never been written, passed, or signed into law. So who knows what could happen.

It seems pretty simple to me: the individual mandate is definitely unconstitutional, there's no severability clause, so strike down the entire law. If SCOTUS just finds one part unconstitutional but lets the rest of the bill stand without a severability clause, how would that be any different from a line item veto, which SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York?
Veritas
06-20-2012, 11:00
If the SC strikes it down, at least it will be a step in the right direction. My weekly medical insurance premiums went up 25% this year.
Ridge
06-20-2012, 11:02
25%? Is that all? I know people who's premiums have gone up 35% or more.
Veritas
06-20-2012, 11:06
25%? Is that all? I know people who's premiums have gone up 35% or more.

Yep that' all. I know I should be thankful I have medical coverage for myself and my family. I am, but with a kid on way every little bit counts. Its just one more way the gov't has screwed us over the last three years.
yankeefan98121
06-20-2012, 11:13
25%? Is that all? I know people who's premiums have gone up 35% or more.

my company got rid of an entire option, and that option was the best value for the employee [Rant1]
Zundfolge
06-20-2012, 11:23
The company I work for dropped all health insurance for employees completely ... thankfully for me I had found a better deal on my own (which is more often the case than one would think). But some of my co-workers are really struggling because of it ... well that and the "temporary" across the board 10% pay cut we all took last November that was supposed to end back in March (no it didn't ... and its more because our boss is a wonderful blend of crook and idiot, not because he can't reinstate our rates).
mcantar18c
06-20-2012, 21:21
our boss is a wonderful blend of crook and idiot

I know how you feel, mine is too...
[Coffee]
BPTactical
06-20-2012, 22:22
I know how you feel, mine is too...
[Coffee]

No, yours is a dillusional, narccissitic, arrogant, self serving prick.
[Coffee]
SA Friday
06-20-2012, 22:31
There is no sever-ability clause for the individual mandate in the law (because it was rushed together ... thank God for the incompetence of these wannabe tyrants). So if we were still the constitutional republic we were designed to be it would be a no-brainer and the whole law would be tossed. But since Wickard v. Filburn - 1942 its been a crap shoot. Sometimes they uphold the Constitution ... sometimes they piss on it (couple of recent examples are Heller and Kelo ... one clearly constitutional, the other ... piss).

Once the law becomes unpredictable, liberty dies and tyranny reigns. For the last 70 years law has been unpredictable.
[ROFL2] then we were doomed to tyranny from the first. Marshall made more shit up in his rulings they came up with a legal term for it. They call it 'legal fiction'.

Read about his rulings concerning GA state and the Cherokee Nation. Hell, he basically wiped his ass with the constitution in one of the rulings. So, I would back the date up to about 1782.
Waywardson174
06-20-2012, 23:09
So, I would back the date up to about 1782.

Because you are the "just the facts" Mod:

Marshall was not appointed to the court until 1801, and the Constitution was not ratified until 1787.

[Poke]
SA Friday
06-20-2012, 23:19
Because you are the "just the facts" Mod:

Marshall was not appointed to the court until 1801, and the Constitution was not ratified until 1787.

[Poke]

Ok, 1802 then. I got lazy and didn't look up the date he was appointed. I also forgot it was like 30 years later. Sigh, heads all messed up from doing 20+ hours of physics this week already.

"F" Newton and the horse he road in on.
Waywardson174
06-20-2012, 23:25
"F" Newton and the horse he road in on.

[ROFL2]
Irving
06-21-2012, 00:27
Ok, 1802 then. I got lazy and didn't look up the date he was appointed. I also forgot it was like 30 years later. Sigh, heads all messed up from doing 20+ hours of physics this week already.

"F" Newton and the horse he road in on.
If Newton was so smart, then why didn't his horse just keep right on going?
GilpinGuy
06-21-2012, 01:29
My kid wants a horse. Is it for sale...cheap?
68Charger
06-21-2012, 06:11
Ok, 1802 then. I got lazy and didn't look up the date he was appointed. I also forgot it was like 30 years later. Sigh, heads all messed up from doing 20+ hours of physics this week already.

"F" Newton and the apple that fell on him.

Fixed it for you...[Coffee]