Did the Supreme Court Set a Date?

[jillian]

Hello and good morning.

Did I miss it? Did the Supreme Court set a date for when they are going to hand down their ruling about the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare)? I recall that it was reported they would make a ruling in June on the matter but I had not heard that the Court had set a date when they would make a ruling.

Where I come down on it is this; I don't see how the government can force you to buy health insurance based on my reading of the Constitution. This isn't like auto liability insurance because you can opt out of driving; you can't opt out of living.

For me, this is yet another reason why this nation needs to further perfect the Constitution. This sort of unpredictable ruling schedule.

It's not happening here...let me repeat it...it is NOT happening here but a ruling overturning the ACA would be seen to many if not most as a body blow to the Obama administration. Again, the Roberts court isn't doing it but a court--one whose members are appointed by and approved by politicians--could be used as a political tool. Obviously, if this ruling were happening in August or September, there would be a much larger impact than it will have if it happens in June as was reported it would be--next week I suppose.

Again, the Roberts court is set to rule next week. However, there doesn't seem to be anything preventing the Court from handing down rulings whenever they wish and this could easily be used for political purposes.

my own personal opinion is that we are forced to pay for social security insurance. we are forced to buy car insurance. we are forced to pay for wars we don't agree on. we have to abide by federal regulations passed under the commerce clause, etc. the only difference is that the people whose idea it was in the first place no longer care for it b/c it was signed off on by this president.

the court *should* uphold it... but with this court. eh...

if you want to watch the court, go to SCOTUSblog

SCOTUSblog

The Commerce Clause must mean that the Federal Government now has the unfettered right to control all human activity. How did the Founders miss that?

the commerce clause says what it says b/c the "founders" knew that they couldn't foresee every possible circumstance.

on the other hand, the founders also thought that only white landed gentry should vote.

so i'd suggest instead of pretending they are the only word... you might want to actually read cases.

tell me dear, what does "equal protection" or "due process" mean absent the caselaw?

i'll wait.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

my own personal opinion is that we are forced to pay for social security insurance. we are forced to buy car insurance. we are forced to pay for wars we don't agree on. we have to abide by federal regulations passed under the commerce clause, etc. the only difference is that the people whose idea it was in the first place no longer care for it b/c it was signed off on by this president.

the court *should* uphold it... but with this court. eh...

if you want to watch the court, go to SCOTUSblog

SCOTUSblog

The Commerce Clause must mean that the Federal Government now has the unfettered right to control all human activity. How did the Founders miss that?

the commerce clause says what it says b/c the "founders" knew that they couldn't foresee every possible circumstance.

on the other hand, the founders also thought that only white landed gentry should vote.

so i'd suggest instead of pretending they are the only word... you might want to actually read cases.

tell me dear, what does "equal protection" or "due process" mean absent the caselaw?

i'll wait.

Sorry, Dear, you walk us through the "unprecedented" nature of Obama's Judicial review theory first.

 

[WillowTree]

It means you're forced to buy car insurance.

 

[percysunshine]

Is this a blind date?

 

[Greenbeard]

It is factual, and it is on the record. Go look it up yourself if you don't like the easy version.

Nebraska's extra Medicaid funds didn't make it it into the law; indeed, the entire structure that allowed it to happen was altered before the end of the legislative process. There is no "Cornhusker kickback" (Nelson voted for the final legislation that lacked it.) And nothing in it is earmarked for Connecticut.

The only one of those three boogeymen that's an actual thing in the law is the fix for Louisiana's FMAP. The way the formula is calculated has screwed them unfairly in the aftermath of Katrina. Bobby Jindal has pointed out that the provision fixing Louisiana's problem is a "legitimate thing for the federal government to fix" and "stands on its own merits." And he's correct.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3efTnNlHyY]Louisiana Gov. Jindal Talks About Medicaid FMAP Problem - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

my own personal opinion is that we are forced to pay for social security insurance. we are forced to buy car insurance. we are forced to pay for wars we don't agree on. we have to abide by federal regulations passed under the commerce clause, etc. the only difference is that the people whose idea it was in the first place no longer care for it b/c it was signed off on by this president.

the court *should* uphold it... but with this court. eh...

if you want to watch the court, go to SCOTUSblog

SCOTUSblog

The Commerce Clause must mean that the Federal Government now has the unfettered right to control all human activity. How did the Founders miss that?

the commerce clause says what it says b/c the "founders" knew that they couldn't foresee every possible circumstance.

on the other hand, the founders also thought that only white landed gentry should vote.

so i'd suggest instead of pretending they are the only word... you might want to actually read cases.

tell me dear, what does "equal protection" or "due process" mean absent the caselaw?

i'll wait.

The intention of the Commerce Clause was perverted by FDR so he could regulate the economy like his pal Uncle Joe was able to in the USSR.

The Founder never, ever, never, ever intended to that the Federal government direct all human activity because they could "...regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

 

[dblack]

Where I come down on it is this; I don't see how the government can force you to buy health insurance based on my reading of the Constitution. This isn't like auto liability insurance because you can opt out of driving; you can't opt out of living.

If you're sick or injured and don't have insurance, can the ambulance/emergency room opt out of providing service? I don't see how your analysis holds water. We're supposed to be making health care affordable, but the opponents seem to be giving a thumbs up to free loaders! IMO, it's the price we need to pay to live in the kind of country where that wouldn't happen

If that's your beef, then you need to be working to repeal EMTALA - instead of promoting even dumber laws to compensate for it. Democrats like to point out the (real) hypocrisy of many of the right who have flipflopped on the individual mandate. But since when did Democrats become consumed with resentment toward 'freeloaders'??

 

[percysunshine]

They didn't know what was in it until after they voted on it.

 

[dblack]

... we are forced to pay for wars we don't agree on.

how true ...

they voted on this the Friday after the hearings in March, and have had that much time to work it out - and with agreement could have made a ruling the first week of June -

could it be Kennedy has chosen to uphold the "Law" and Chief Justice Roberts is using his position to delay the ruling in hopes of changing Kennedy's decision ??? - stand your ground justice Kennedy, you have chosen correctly.

I hadn't considered such a scenario, but it's a sobering thought. My understanding is that they decided shortly after the hearing (or even before) and in the interim have merely been writing it up.

This decision is huge, in my view - if nothing else because of the notoriety, and it presents an opportunity to set some decent limits on bad precedent. Given that neither the Republicans or the Democrats seem interested in serious limits on federal power, the Court is really our last line of defense.

 

[dblack]

Did the Founders think we should leave people on the side of the road because they don't have insurance? If we're going to take care of everyone regardless, we need to make sure as many contribute as possible. Would those who chose not to get insurance be willing to sign a document that they "opt out" of living, should the unthinkable happen?

Right. Let's be clear hear - it's the bolded portion that's being argued over. Is it the role of government to ensure that everyone is 'taken care of'?

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS is always the last line on the Constitution.

Yes, this is a sobering thought, and this decision is a major one.

I suspect Roberts and The Three want to throw it all out, Kennedy will compromise only tossing the mandate, and is telling the Roberts either the Chief gives in or he (Kennedy) will go with liberal four and rule the law entirely constitutional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Did the Founders think we should leave people on the side of the road because they don't have insurance? If we're going to take care of everyone regardless, we need to make sure as many contribute as possible. Would those who chose not to get insurance be willing to sign a document that they "opt out" of living, should the unthinkable happen?

Right. Let's be clear hear - it's the bolded portion that's being argued over. Is it the role of government to ensure that everyone is 'taken care of'?

National health is a national economic and national security issue.

 

[dblack]

Did the Founders think we should leave people on the side of the road because they don't have insurance? If we're going to take care of everyone regardless, we need to make sure as many contribute as possible. Would those who chose not to get insurance be willing to sign a document that they "opt out" of living, should the unthinkable happen?

Right. Let's be clear hear - it's the bolded portion that's being argued over. Is it the role of government to ensure that everyone is 'taken care of'?

National health is a national economic and national security issue.

Heh... yup. That sort of sums up the view. We are, all of us, national resources, and the ambitions of the fatherland require us to perform at maximum efficiency. Anything and everything that might detract from our ability to be productive workers or obedient soldiers is subject to government mandate.

Got it.

 

[percysunshine]

Wow...JakeStarkcrazey is a Supreme Intern.

Who else would know that judicial decissions are just a game of Texas Hold'em.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SCOTUS is always the last line on the Constitution.

Yes, this is a sobering thought, and this decision is a major one.

I suspect Roberts and The Three want to throw it all out, Kennedy will compromise only tossing the mandate, and is telling the Roberts either the Chief gives in or he (Kennedy) will go with liberal four and rule the law entirely constitutional.

I thought Obama said it was "unprecedented" for SCOTUS to overturn a democratically passed law?

Is he wrong?

 

[dblack]

Signing off on PPACA would at least send a clear message, and maybe wake a few people up: In the eyes of our leaders, government can be used to force us to do pretty much anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your far right nonsense, guys, is simply . . . nonsense.

My theory about Kennedy bargaining with Roberts is as good anyone else's theory.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Your far right nonsense, guys, is simply . . . nonsense.

My theory about Kennedy bargaining with Roberts is as good anyone else's theory.

Wow, only 2 sentences.... That blatantly contradict each other...

You really think that makes you look 'smart'?

 

[percysunshine]

Your far right nonsense, guys, is simply . . . nonsense.

My theory about Kennedy bargaining with Roberts is as good anyone else's theory.

It is not as good as my theory that Kagan and Thomas are secret lovers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your far right nonsense, guys, is simply . . . nonsense.

My theory about Kennedy bargaining with Roberts is as good anyone else's theory.

Wow, only 2 sentences.... That blatantly contradict each other...

You really think that makes you look 'smart'?

The sense of what you just wrote as if you just ran into a brick wall with your head and stunned yourself.