Affordable Care Act: D-Day
Jason P
Posts: 19,156
At 10 AM the Supreme Court will hand down their decision on the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). Do you think it will be upheld or struck down? Will some mandates make it thru? Only the nine robes know.
Let it begin!
:corn:
Let it begin!
:corn:
Be Excellent To Each Other
Party On, Dudes!
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
based on scalia's mocking line of questioning in the hearings he made up his mind before even hearing the arguments.
i expect nothing less from a court of justices who legislate and pontificate from the bench. any court that decides that money is speech and not property is fundamentally flawed at best, and outright partisan at worst. i have zero faith or confidence in the supreme court.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Yeah, Scalia's dissent on the Arizona decision was insanely partisan, half focusing on the president and events that had nothing to do with the case before him. A total joke
As for today, I'm a bit unsure. I would not be surprised at all if it is overturned, but something in my gut says Roberts is too smart to do it. He does not want to go down in history as chief justice of the most insane supreme court in history, and if he goes along with Scalia, Thomas (how he was not forced to recuse himself is beyond me) and the rest, he is sealing his fate. we shall see
I don't think they throw out the whole thing but they will take out the part where people are forced to pay into the system.
i also find it funny how both sides complain about the SC legislate from the bench of course it usually about something they disagree with.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Some companies have already said they would leave the age 26 provision regardless of outcome (fact is, those are not the people costing the system anyway. It's a complete red herring). But, you cannot leave the pre-ex if you take out the mandatory coverage. It would make it unaffordable anyway.
It IS legislating if they decide to leave pieces. It is NOT legislating if they declare unconstitutional and tell Congress back to the drawing board. The Court cannot pick and choose. The law is either constitutional or its not. Yes, pieces can be, but THAT is legislating.
You may not agree with their decision. And you can cry partisan, legislating and the rest. But, to me, they either have to leave it or throw it all out. There is no middle ground. That would be legislating. I may disagree with their decision, but that's the beauty and genius of the system.
i also find it funny how both sides complain about the SC legislate from the bench of course it usually about something they disagree with.[/quote]
common sense would tell me that they would keep the pre-existing conditions and the kids can stay on their parent's insurance until age 26, but again, with this court and with the way the solicitor failed to make a good case for this bill, all bets are off. it would not surprise me if they said that placing those provisions on insurance companies would be an unfair burden for those companies or something. insurance companies are not in it to help people. they are in it to make money. and this court would view impeding business' ability to make that money as a big issue.[/quote]
Some companies have already said they would leave the age 26 provision regardless of outcome (fact is, those are not the people costing the system anyway. It's a complete red herring). But, you cannot leave the pre-ex if you take out the mandatory coverage. It would make it unaffordable anyway.
It IS legislating if they decide to leave pieces. It is NOT legislating if they declare unconstitutional and tell Congress back to the drawing board. The Court cannot pick and choose. The law is either constitutional or its not. Yes, pieces can be, but THAT is legislating.
You may not agree with their decision. And you can cry partisan, legislating and the rest. But, to me, they either have to leave it or throw it all out. There is no middle ground. That would be legislating. I may disagree with their decision, but that's the beauty and genius of the system.[/quote]
I don't think this is correct. if the job of the SC is to see if something is unconstitutional or not, they can come back and say that some parts of the law are while others are not. this is not legislating in reality.
I think if they strike against it is is legislating, period. Nothing new for this court. Heck, their decision in the firefighter case in 2009 wasn't even federal legislating, it was LOCAL. Overall, there is precedent for mandates in our country's history, if you want to look at it that way, so striking it for that reason is BS. Commerce clause also works here. So I don't see how, logically, it goes down. Then again, I'm not figuring logic is coming from this court, especially when the WIFE OF A JUSTICE LOBBIES AGAINST THE BILL. And another is Scalia.
Aren't you conveniently forgetting another Justice that is more obvious to recuse herself since she was on the Cabinet when the bill was written?
It's all so silly. If the SC doesn't agree with someone, it's legislating.
I wouldn't say this supreme court is insane. That is why there is 9 of them, and all 9 justices are very accomplished and very intelligent...it is also because a previous president felt they were insane too I suppose
I think the individual mandate will be thrown out. Which will mean the law will have to go back to the legislators for review and change. It has never happened before and seems to be an overreach on the commerce clause, like most interpretations of it IMO. But that is the beauty of the constitution I suppose. That is what scares me a little bit about this, that it will be kept on the grounds of yet a further expansion of the commerce clause, on the heals of further limits placed on states rights...With the mandate...this is now gov't entity forcing its citizens to pay a 3rd party business their money simply for being a citizen (all the while it is still no guarantee of coverage by the way). This is now a cost of being a citizen simply for being born. I don't know...seems strange to me. If they were forcing you to pay the gov't something it would make more sense to me...I wouldn't like it but it would make more sense, especially if all medical needs would be covered. But forcing them to pay 3rd party payers who can still deny medical care coverage...that seems insane.
I am very excited to see which way they go and to read the opinions.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
:think:
The dissenting opinions will be in regard to throwing the entire law out (which it will be).
That's the prediction because it's constitutionally and traditionally correct.
She wasn't involved with the drafting of legal strategy for the government's defense, so there really is no reason to recuse herself. Just previously having the job solicitor general doesn't mean one can't rule on any case that the government is involved in (which is a bunch of them)
That's the funny (and scary) part - the law actually HELPS insurance companies. Yet, somehow part of the argument as to why this "legislative" Court will throw out is because they are in big business' back pocket. It's all so humorous.
Unanimous? Its either going to be 5-4 against or for, or 6-3 for (very unlikely).
The vote to declare the primary piece unconstitutional will be unanimous. It almost always is for the SC.
The dissent will be 3 or 4 justices and it will surround throwing the whole thing out. I just want to be clear on the difference there.
(I do find it funny that you are part of the chorus saying the conservatives are partisan, yet you clearly beleive the libs will stick together no matter what. That is ironic).
SCOTUS blog just said it is a -118% chance it is unanimous
http://news.yahoo.com/the-supreme-court-s-obamacare-decision--live-coverage-from-scotusblog.html
You are missing the nuance, so I will stop. Read the decision when it comes out. Yes, it will be reported 5-4 or whatever b/c that's the overall ruling on the law itself. BUt, if you read carefully, you will see that the provision being unconstitutional will be unanimous. (And there's no 118%)
SHOW COUNT: (164) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=108, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
edit:
This is for the insurance mandate. I think there will be several rulings.
upheld.
I'm not one of those, but I will be first to admit - my prediction was wrong.
Funny thing is, the folks you refer to will be back here pissed in 6 months when they realize what the law really did....
The money quote from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.
Which will be what?