Could the activist judges just ignore all the precedents and deem this illegal?

[LiberalLoner]

I guess if they do that, everyone is saying we will just put in the public option.

But what I'm hearing on MSNBC is that there are a bunch of precedents that would have to be overturned (including the ruling on Medicare)and NORMALLY the SC would not overturn all of that, but...with the activist judges in place...shoot, they could strike down not only this but declare the much hated (by repugs) Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid illegal too.

Is there any recourse at all to these activist judges if they do this? Or if they do something else ridiculous such as banning elections and establishing a dictatorship instead as the law of the land?

It seems to me that these activist judges are now the monarchy of America - they are dictators and we the people have no power.

[Abq_Sarah]

1. There is no precedent

For requiring citizens to purchase a specific product or service from a private company, whether they can afford it and want it, or not.

[solara]

2. So, that means I no longer have to buy car insurance? n/t

:patriot:

[Myrina]

7. Give up your car & license and you won't have to buy it any longer.

Unfortunately, you can't be bodiless (unless you have powers the rest of us don't); therefore the comparison is a false one.

[solara]

8. Well, who can I sue for making it impossible for me to live without a car?

:patriot:

[Abq_Sarah]

11. Do you really think

They are one in the same?

Driving a car on public roads isn't a right.

If you don't own a car, no one forces you to purchase insurance.

Car insurance is not a federal mandate.

[solara]

16. Up to now, health insurance has never been a right either, not for me anyway..

I pay my car insurance premiums because I have to in order to drive. I have to drive. I want to drive. I also want to live. I want to be healthy. So I will pay the health insurance premiums now that I will be ABLE to get health insurance.

:patriot:

[Romulox]

15. The Federal gov't doesn't require you to buy car insurance. Do I need to make that my sig?

:hi:

[Riftaxe]

18. This is more similiar to a poll tax then auto insurance (nt)

[LiberalLoner]

4. Then why are they saying on MSNBC that the precedent here is Medicare?

I am completely lost, obviously. They really ARE saying on that channel there are lots of precedents that would have to be overturned. Are they wrong? If they are, how do you know they are wrong, do you have a legal background?

I have no idea whether they are wrong or right because I don't have any legal background.

[Abq_Sarah]

14. You don't need a legal background

To understand basic concepts. The Fed has never made buying a product from a private company a condition of being alive until now.

If it is upheld, do you think it stops with health insurance? Do you have any idea what the right wing could do with a precedent that says the government can force us, by law, to purchase a specific product or service from the private industry "for the good of the country"?

[onenote]

9. you don't have to purchase it

you just have to pay more taxes if you don't. And there is no constitutional prohibition against a tax increase.

[Abq_Sarah]

12. I doubt that argument is going to fly

In the legal sense. It's like saying we must all purchase new American made cars every 4 years or face a stiff fine.

[onenote]

17. no its like saying taxes are being raised but a new credit is being created

Money is fungible. Whether its called a tax, a fee, or a penaly, it is a new obligation to pay money into the Treasury. But it can be offset by other actions that you can take, such as purchasing health insurance. By the way, the government COULD raise the income tax on everyone by .5 percent (to help cut the deficit) and simultaneously create a new credit for everyone who buys an Amerian made car (just as it created a credit for the purchase of hybrid cars).

Its a tax increase for sure, but its not unconstitutional.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Once it hits The Supremes, they can more or less decide to follow precedents or otherwise.

And the only "remedy" for activist SC decisions is wait for a new bunch and move the issue up through the federal courts again for another review.

[LiberalLoner]

6. So they really are dictators, aren't they? So much for the balance of powers...

[onenote]

10. sometimes overturning precedent is good, sometimes its bad

the fact that the Court is not absolutely bound by precedent doesn't alone make them dictators.

[no_hypocrisy]

13. Nothing in the Constitution that mandates they be impartial when they rule.

[Xenotime]

5. Sounds like a plan to me.