Obamacare ruled Unconstitutional

jjjjj wrote:

one judge ruled the whole thing void, another ruled one provision void, and two judges ruled it constitutional. The Supreme Court is likely to overturn the provision but not necessarily the whole law (which would be nonsense). It would have been far wiser to have a public option or make it Medicare for All, but that scumbag Lieberman had to offer the possibility and then change his mind, leaving us with this fairly untenable provision in the law (buy private insurance or pay a fine).

As the post above accurately points out, one judge has ruled that only the provision with the individual mandate is unconstitutional. It is highly unlikely the whole Affordable Healthcare Act would be voided entirely even if the mandate part of it doesn't hold up constitutionally. A lot of justices on the Supreme Court will argue that the provision could be merely severed. That happens all the time with acts that have been signed into law and many parts of the law have been implemented. Personally, I would not like to see the law repealed; however, even if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional by the highest court in the land, I think Republicans and Democrats can up with a compromise to improve it. Let's study a public option again or work on being able to sell any insurance across state lines to improve competitive pricing for the benefit of the consumer. There is a rational way to do this without destroying the whole law. I doubt anyone wants to take prescription money away from seniors, or tell all the young people under 26 still in college that they are now not able to be on there parent's insurance, or deny someone coverage because of a pre-existing condition. If the mandate is the main problem, the most likely outcome is that Democrats and Republicans will both be forced to work together to amend it. No way the Supreme Court kills the whole act.

This is completely wrong. The entire bill is predicated on the mandate requirement -- otherwise the entire bill crashes and burns because it won't be revenue neutral (according to the cooked accounting that was relied on) without it. Congress could have included a severability clause (like most bills have), that would allow a court to knock out an unconstitutional section, but our wonderful Congress elected not to include one here. It's going to the SCOTUS and it most likely will be a 5-4 vote with Kennedy being the deciding vote.

Keith Stone wrote:

what was dat? wrote:

THIS IS THE MOST HYPOCRITICAL POST ON letsrun OF ALL TIME.

Since it's obvious you lack the intellectual capacity to understand the most fundamental issues, it's pretty funny you pick a word like hypocritical when you don't know how to use it in context. It's really highlights your ignorance of the language, and quite frankly of the topic at hand.

Go back to your room little boy, let the adults have a conversation now.

eb white wrote:

This is completely wrong. The entire bill is predicated on the mandate requirement -- otherwise the entire bill crashes and burns because it won't be revenue neutral (according to the cooked accounting that was relied on) without it.

If the law cannot fly without the mandate, how can the gov't be already implementing the law prior to the mandated payments taking effect?

Also, if you believe the accounting was "ccoked", why are you using that to back up your assertion?

Has anyone bothered to mention that this decision was made by a district court judge in Florida, which means it has absolutely no bearing on anyone in the country outside of his backwater district?

The government has started to implement the law because, um, it's the law. This isn't rocket science. However, it won't be the law anymore if/when the SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional. Congress can pass a 100% unconstitutional law (say, only white men in California can vote in the 2012 Presidential election) and it's the law until the courts knock it out. That's the checks and balances system at work.

I'm not using anything to "back up" my assertion. It's unclear why the severability clause was not in the final bill because it was in an earlier version. Some people believe is was just sloppiness on the part of Congress in its rush to get the bill passed. Others think that it was more a game of chicken -- by excluding it, it forces the SCOTUS to either accept the entire bill or reject the entire bill and the brilliant drafters decided to roll the dice in the belief that the SCOTUS will be bullied into the former. I have no idea what the real reason is but it most certainly has set up one of the most important legal decisions in US history.

dsrunner has the day off wrote:

How do you feel about philanthropy to the war profiteers who have stolen zillions from taxpayers for years? The same war profiteers Eisenhower warned us about?

How do you feel about philanthropy to the oil companies who have benefited so much from oppression and turmoil in the middle east?

Or philanthropy to the massive Wall St. banks who stole more money than you could ever count?

I was thinking about this healthcare stuff last night, wondering when a God fearing Christian neocon judge might get around to calling it unconstitutional that a kid goes hungry, goes to a horrible school, or goes without healthcare. That these things are allowed to happen in our country is not just unconstitutional but also unconscionable.

Unconscionable, yes. Unconstitutional, no.

It is sad that we have devolved to this. People need to go back to when people took care of their neighbors. If we do that, there is no need for government intervention.

Sadly, people, in general, are too selfish.

eb white wrote:

I have no idea what the real reason is but it most certainly has set up one of the most important legal decisions in US history.

Really!!!!!

Most important legal decision in US History????

Not even in the top ten.

Reading comprehension doesn't appear to be one of your strengths. ONE OF doesn't not mean THE. Yes, reversing 75 years of the expansion of the Commerce Clause and nullifying a bill that regulates over 17% of the economy will be a massive SCOTUS decision. In keeping with the diaper theme today, i suggest that you change your soiled ones.

eb white wrote:

In keeping with the diaper theme today, i suggest that you change your soiled ones.

Your inability to maintain a civil tone in these discussions severely undermines your credibility, my friend.

Old Gregg wrote:

Has anyone bothered to mention that this decision was made by a district court judge in Florida, which means it has absolutely no bearing on anyone in the country outside of his backwater district?

Old Gregg, if you bothered to read up on the matter, you wouldn't be making such an moronic statement. Perhaps your fellow liberals are too lazy to correct you. There were 26 states included in this ruling:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Another legal scholar of some repute:

Sen. Durbin: The point raised by Senator Lee – the “buy your vegetables, eat your vegetables” point? I’d like you ask to comment on that because that is the one I’m hearing most often. By people who are saying “Well, if the government can require me to buy health insurance, can it require me to have a membership in a gym, or eat vegetables?” We’ve heard from Professor Dellinger on that point, would you like to comment?

Prof. Fried: Yes. We hear that quite a lot. It was put by Judge Vinson, and I think it was put by Professor Barnett in terms of eating your vegetables, and for reasons I set out in my testimony, that would be a violation of the 5th and the 14th Amendment, to force you to eat something. But to force you to pay for something? I don’t see why not. It may not be a good idea, but I don’t see why it’s unconstitutional.

Odd.

eb white wrote:

Reading comprehension doesn't appear to be one of your strengths. ONE OF doesn't not mean THE. Yes, reversing 75 years of the expansion of the Commerce Clause and nullifying a bill that regulates over 17% of the economy will be a massive SCOTUS decision. In keeping with the diaper theme today, i suggest that you change your soiled ones.

Someone is a little uptight aren't we?

eb white wrote:

This is completely wrong. The entire bill is predicated on the mandate requirement -- otherwise the entire bill crashes and burns because it won't be revenue neutral (according to the cooked accounting that was relied on) without it. Congress could have included a severability clause (like most bills have), that would allow a court to knock out an unconstitutional section, but our wonderful Congress elected not to include one here. It's going to the SCOTUS and it most likely will be a 5-4 vote with Kennedy being the deciding vote.

I agree with Kennedy being the deciding vote. Still, they are going to argue as is done with many bills that the severability clause is implied. The negation of the mandate wouldn't make it crash and burn; they would just amend it with something else as if had a severability clause. If millions of 25 years are already being insured and many other provisions are being enacted as they are now, the Supreme Court would find it very hard to find reasoning to void the whole bill. Making a bill revenue neutral is not the job of the court, it is to examine which parts abide by the constitution. As you said, most likely it will come down to Kennedy. I believe the vote will be over striking out a provision and not the entire bill.

Who is "they"? We have what's called the separation of powers in the country. The courts don't amend the laws. If you meant Congress, where were you a couple of weeks ago when the House repealed the entire bill? The SCOTUS couldn't give a rat's ass if "millions of 25 years" (whatever that is) already are being insured.

Also, if you think that it's the job of the SCOTUS to examine a bill to see which parts abide by the Constitution, do us all a favor and read a civics 101 book before posting again because you clearly have absolutely no idea how the judicial system works.

No. I generally don't suffer fools lightly and a completely moronic post with 9 exclamation points and quotation marks and just 14 words nicely fits the bill.

Obama has one question to answer. What did you do for the brothers. He don't care about Global warming or saving the whales. He better just answer that one question. To also have the white man pay for it is brilliant. Get out your check books white boys and pay for my health care. You owe me cause of slavery.

eb white wrote:

The government has started to implement the law because, um, it's the law.

Okay. So in other words, this latest ruling means nothing? The judge did not stop implementation of the law even though he could have issued an injunction. Maybe some Republican governors will use this ruling to slow/stop implementation at their specific state level, but no one is going to argue that that will work if the law is constitutional. Until the SC rules differently, the current law is the law of the land and will continue to be implemented. So what's all the fuss about this latest ruling? I don't get it.

eb white wrote:

No. I generally don't suffer fools lightly and a completely moronic post with 9 exclamation points and quotation marks and just 14 words nicely fits the bill.

Someone will need some good health care if they keep getting as uptight as you are over a silly message board thread..

Calm down man....

oh and by the way this case will still not be one of the top ten supreme court cases!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)

not that it really matters