Supreme Court to strike down individual mandate

[Mtn.man]

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/i...123441478.html

[Zundfolge]

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]

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]

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]

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

Either way it's just an insider poll and not official

[68Charger]

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]

That's how I understood it as well

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]

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]

25%? Is that all? I know people who's premiums have gone up 35% or more.

[Veritas]

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.