Why the Supremes will rules 5-4 against ACA

[COLGATE4]

Adam Winkler (Professor of Law at UCLA) has a provocative argument in today's Huffington Post which makes a lot of sense to me. In essence he argues that the rosy expectations that Scalia (and possibly Roberts) might be in play due to some language in prior rulings are not realistic. And he also goes on to show why he believes that Kennedy, the swing vote will vote against the ACA. Worth reading.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/no-surprise-the-supreme-c_b_1384859.html

[joeybee12]

1. Kennedy is always the swing vote...

It will go 5-4 either way, I'd bet they overturn the mandate, but will they overturn the entire law? That could be decided differently...I think 5-4 overturn mandate, 5-4 they uphold the other parts of the law.

[COLGATE4]

5. I'd probably agree with you, except that I'm not

sure they're going to declare that the mandate is severable. After all, 'if the Obama administration had wanted it to be severable they would have put severability in the law, wouldn't they'?

[Doctor_J]

2. Because SCOTUS is completely corrupt

there should have been a major pushback in Dec 2000, taking no hostages. We'd have recovered by now. As it is that was the beginning of the end. We demonstrated that we would not fight back under any circumstances - that they could do whatever they wanted with no repercussions. They have continued to ramp it up over those 11 years, and nothing's been done whatsoever. There will be no change until we make it.

[badtoworse]

4. So what would you have done about 2000?

Start a revolution? Someone has to have the final say in adjudicating a disagreement.

[Doctor_J]

6. Someone, maybe, but not corrupt political hacks

And at what point would you fight back? Never? Just wait for fascism to tire itself out? What exactly do you see at the end of the current trajectory, especially if we just sit and do nothing? If you are 100% dead set against revolting, exactly and why do you think things will change?

[badtoworse]

8. I don't agree with everything this court has done,...

...but I'm not ready to start a revolition over it either. There is no assurance that a radical change in our government would be an improvement.

There are legitimate questions about the constitutionality of this law that need to be answered. How would you answer them?

[Doctor_J]

9. Then I ask again, what would you consider cause to fight back?

They have stolen presidential elections, stolen local and state elections, purged millions of eligible voters from the rolls, turned the country into a shooting gallery, and given corporations free reign over the election process. They fill our airwaves (including American Forces Network) with lies, hate, death threats, and seditious propaganda. their zombies shoot congress members and anyone else deemed part of the "liberal problem".

Please post 2-3 examples of things you would consider fighting for

As to your question, I would not let this particular court decide anything. They are too partisan and corrupt.

[badtoworse]

12. I don't see the electoral process the same way you do.

Just because we lost doesn't mean the election was stolen.

Enjoy your violent revolution; I'm OK with our present system of government.

[Doctor_J]

17. The election was stolen, and thanks for admitting

that there is no crime that you are willing to fight against. Sadly, there are too many of you around for the real Smericans to have any hope of taking the country back from the fascists. You would have been an excellent "Good German", and when the sad story of the right-wing takeover of the US is written, you and the rest of the appeasers will be featured prominently.

[badtoworse]

18. I'm very comfortable in my own skin.

[libtodeath]

19. Agree 100%

This court has no legitimacy,2 were appointed by an unelected President.

[Doctor_J]

22. And Slappy and Fat Tony are eminently impeachable.

It has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that Thomas lied at his confirmation hearing, and Scalia's list of conflicts of interest is longer than my arm.

My main point in this thread is, why have libs/Dems completely lost the will to fight? Or, put another way, what outrage will have to be inflicted on us before we hit back?

[demosincebirth]

3. Well, we can thank Nader for the makeup of thise RW Supreme Court. I wish he would have gotton a

real job years ago, or maybe just a job.

[BlueDemKev]

7. +1,000

Nader voters, especially in Florida and New Hampshire should be ashamed of themselves.

[CTyankee]

11. I voted third party (not Nader) years ago and regret it.

It didn't change the election. The candidate was John Anderson. I later met the guy and a colder fish I never met than that guy...

[BlueDemKev]

14. Oh yeah....

....I remember my parents voted for him too, back in 1980. They were SO fed up with Jimmy Carter and his attitude towards Ted Kennedy during the primary race. Anderson may not have been the most personable guy, but he'll always have my respect for standing up at the NRA annual conference and asked, "What's so bad about having your guns licensed?" That took guts!

[CTyankee]

15. well, I regret not voting for Jimmy Carter in that election. I really do.

We really should have rallied around him. Teddy needed to keep his head down a little longer, IMO. But I think he was still drinking then and had lots of marital problems IIRC...

[demosincebirth]

25. Ted Kennedy. pushing through the trucking deregulation bill cost the trucking sector 300,000

Last edited Sat Mar 31, 2012, 12:57 PM - Edit history (1)

teamster, union, jobs. Thanks for that one Teddy, from a retired teamster.

[Doctor_J]

10. Nader voters, maybe. Nader, why?

You might as well blame Pat Paulsen. And let's not forget that Gore won FL, even with Nader in the race.

[BlueDemKev]

13. Because if Nader hadn't siphoned off 97,000+ votes from Gore....

....in Florida, there never would have been ANY question that Gore had won the state. Quit defending Nader, he ultimately cost Al Gore the election in 2000 and his stubborness and stupidity has resulted in this horribly DANGEROUS Supreme Court majority which has already declared the corporations are people and are bound and determined to stamp out ANY action taken by Congress to help those who aren't earning a six-figure income.

[demosincebirth]

27. Don't try and shift the blame for Gore's loss. It was f**king Nader and his groupies that

allowed the Florida fiasco to, even, get to the SC.

[malaise]

16. They won't make a decision

They will say they need time to read it

[spanone]

20. no one knows...not even a professor

[Arkana]

21. If it's 5-4, Obama will be able to rally the troops much easier than if it's 6-3 or 7-2.

A partisan SCOTUS decision on the HCR bill? Unless they limit the ruling SPECIFICALLY to the individual mandate and nothing else, they will make the Republicans own the health care system in this country.

[tjwash]

23. Rule of thumb with this SCOTUS...

...if it means more for the 1% and less for everyone else, they will side with it.

[COLGATE4]

24. BINGO!!!!! We have a winner.

[Better Believe It]

26. The insurance industry and big pharma will put tremendous pressure on the SC to leave it intact.

So the outcome is in serious doubt for me.