Did the Supreme Court Set a Date?

[JakeStarkey]

percysunshine, that would be something.

 

[Si modo]

I'm being forced to purchase car insurance?

I had no idea.

 

[candycorn]

How can the Supreme Court rule against it? It was passed Democratically! Doesn't that make it "unprecedented"?

Legislation has been overturned in the past.

 

[candycorn]

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

he he he....

I'm all for the court keeping it in tact the way it was passed. But Constitutionally...I don't see where you can be forced to buy health insurance.

 

[candycorn]

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

If you don't work, you don't pay into SS.
If you don't drive, you are not forced to buy auto insurance.

You can't opt out of breathing.

A lot of people don't like Congress. Should we be able to disband them?

 

[Ernie S.]

... 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 think they're waiting for Ginsburg to stop crying and finish writing her dissenting opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It depends on Kennedy. My opinion is that he will uphold the law itself but may side with throwing out the mandate. That is an easy fix. It can be done by executive order, for that matter.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The case is National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, if that hasn’t been noted already, and the IM will most definitely be invalidated.

The only question remaining is ‘severability,’ and what, if any, parts of the law can be ‘salvaged.’

Sorting out the law is more of a problem for the conservative members of the Court, torn between their partisan desire to ‘hand Obama a defeat’ and their ideological repugnance toward interfering with Congressional intent, lest they engage in ‘judicial activism.’

The politics of the case are equally problematic for the right: wipe out the entire law and conservatives lose a weapon against Obama and a rallying point for the Base. If the Court strikes down the IM only and allows other popular provisions to stand, Obama wins, and republicans look like the heartless cowards they are.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

True.

But nowhere in the text of the ACA does it ‘force’ anyone to do anything. Indeed, the statue actually states that those who refuse to participate will suffer neither a criminal nor civil penalty. With regard to Commerce Clause case law and precedent, the ACA in no way runs afoul of Lopez/Morrison and is an otherwise appropriate regulation of the insurance industry. Consequently, the opinion striking down the IM will be a very interesting read indeed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

... 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.

What ‘bad precedent’ is that? From Wickard v. Filburn (1942) to Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Court has maintained a consistent view of the Commerce Clause as allowing Congress sweeping authority to indeed regulate commerce. And Lopez/Morrison merely placed an appropriate limit to that authority with regard to Congress using its ‘police powers.’

In fact, even if the Court strikes down all of the ACA, the ruling will have no adverse effect on Wickard or its progeny. The case is ‘huge’ only from a political standpoint, as it’s otherwise legally isolated.

 

[dblack]

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.

What ‘bad precedent’ is that? From Wickard v. Filburn (1942) to Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Court has maintained a consistent view of the Commerce Clause as allowing Congress sweeping authority to indeed regulate commerce.

That (the idea that the commerce clause represents "sweeping authority" would be the bad precedent, yes. It's wide body of case law, but any strike to reverse it is welcome.

In fact, even if the Court strikes down all of the ACA, the ruling will have no adverse effect on Wickard or its progeny. The case is ‘huge’ only from a political standpoint, as it’s otherwise legally isolated.

Out of curiosity, why do you say that?

Regarding my comment, it's "huge" in terms of the public perception of the concept of limited government. I'm gratified that a fair number of my countrymen find the notion the corporate interests can use federal power to order people to buy their products offensive. It will be worthwhile PR (even if that's all it is) to see the court strike down the effort.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

... 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.

The Court only releases decisions at the end of the Session unless it is an emergency decision. They have done that through out the History of the Court. And historically the only release the most contentious ones on the last day of releases.

But you liberals make up all the lies and misinformation you want.

 

[candycorn]

... 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.

The Court only releases decisions at the end of the Session unless it is an emergency decision. They have done that through out the History of the Court. And historically the only release the most contentious ones on the last day of releases.

But you liberals make up all the lies and misinformation you want.

So the term is ending next week?

Who makes the Court's session schedule?

 

[Si modo]

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.

The Court only releases decisions at the end of the Session unless it is an emergency decision. They have done that through out the History of the Court. And historically the only release the most contentious ones on the last day of releases.

But you liberals make up all the lies and misinformation you want.

So the term is ending next week?

Who makes the Court's session schedule?

The last days for oral arguments were in May. Their term is from October to July. But, that doesn't mean they take the summer off. They are busy writing decisions during that time, as well.

As with any high court (appellate and supreme), they parties to the case never know when their decision will come down. It can be a matter of weeks, or months. And, the parties to the case must be informed of the decision before it is released to the public.

I see nothing unusual about the public still not knowing what the decision is. This is SOP for any high court. And, I am impressed with likely the only agency and a branch of the US government who actually knows how to keep their mouths shut. The Executive Office needs to take note.

ETA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/default.aspx

 

[jillian]

... 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.

The Court only releases decisions at the end of the Session unless it is an emergency decision. They have done that through out the History of the Court. And historically the only release the most contentious ones on the last day of releases.

But you liberals make up all the lies and misinformation you want.

you think the Court only issues decisions at the end of the term? That's interesting because everything I've read said this one would be released in or around June... which is why I provided the link to SCOTUSblog.com

But keep on keepin on.

 

[Si modo]

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.

The Court only releases decisions at the end of the Session unless it is an emergency decision. They have done that through out the History of the Court. And historically the only release the most contentious ones on the last day of releases.

But you liberals make up all the lies and misinformation you want.

you think the Court only issues decisions at the end of the term? That's interesting because everything I've read said this one would be released in or around June... which is why I provided the link to SCOTUSblog.com

But keep on keepin on.

Right. Here is a list of their recent decisions showing decisions released during term, as well. October last year to current, so far.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

The Court only releases decisions at the end of the Session unless it is an emergency decision. They have done that through out the History of the Court. And historically the only release the most contentious ones on the last day of releases.

But you liberals make up all the lies and misinformation you want.

you think the Court only issues decisions at the end of the term? That's interesting because everything I've read said this one would be released in or around June... which is why I provided the link to SCOTUSblog.com

But keep on keepin on.

Sure thing wing nut. According to YOU and the person you are supporting in this thread the Court politically decided when to release this decision and it has no precedent. You sure that is what you want to claim?

 

[Si modo]

The Court only releases decisions at the end of the Session unless it is an emergency decision. They have done that through out the History of the Court. And historically the only release the most contentious ones on the last day of releases.

But you liberals make up all the lies and misinformation you want.

you think the Court only issues decisions at the end of the term? That's interesting because everything I've read said this one would be released in or around June... which is why I provided the link to SCOTUSblog.com

But keep on keepin on.

Sure thing wing nut. According to YOU and the person you are supporting in this thread the Court politically decided when to release this decision and it has no precedent. You sure that is what you want to claim?

It looks like according to her, the Court reaches decisions during term and after term. And, the evidence of opinion release dates indicates the same.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stop, wing nuts!

Everything written during arguments on this case said the decision would be released in June, period.

It has not been released. We don't know why.

Nutters, stop the nutty nonsense.

 

[jillian]

The Court only releases decisions at the end of the Session unless it is an emergency decision. They have done that through out the History of the Court. And historically the only release the most contentious ones on the last day of releases.

But you liberals make up all the lies and misinformation you want.

you think the Court only issues decisions at the end of the term? That's interesting because everything I've read said this one would be released in or around June... which is why I provided the link to SCOTUSblog.com

But keep on keepin on.

Sure thing wing nut. According to YOU and the person you are supporting in this thread the Court politically decided when to release this decision and it has no precedent. You sure that is what you want to claim?

you know, i'm constrained from calling you delusional and mentally ill.

not to mention your being a compulsive liar....

so i'll just say that you don't know what you're talking about.... as usual.