Uphill fight for foes of healthcare law

[jaysunb]

Source: L A Times

States fighting healthcare law don't have precedent on their side
A 2005 Supreme Court ruling citing the authority to regulate commerce poses a problem for suits claiming it's unconstitutional for the federal government to force individuals to have insurance.

Reporting from Washington - Lawsuits from 14 states challenging the constitutionality of the new national healthcare law face an uphill battle, largely due to a far-reaching Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that upheld federal restrictions on home-grown marijuana in California.

At issue in that case -- just like in the upcoming challenges to the healthcare overhaul -- was the reach of the federal government's power.

Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy joined a 6-3 ruling that said Congress could regulate marijuana that was neither bought nor sold on the market but rather grown at home legally for sick patients.

They said the Constitution gave Congress nearly unlimited power to regulate the marketplace as part of its authority "to regulate commerce

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-constitutionality27-2010mar27,0,7405718.story

[Proletariatprincess]

1. Yes...but this Court has already shown it doesn't have any regard for precedent.

The Roberts court is the most ideological Supreme Court in memory. I wouldn't put it past the majority to rule against in favor of the plaintiffs.
I have mixed feelings about this. I would like to see the mandate ruled unconstitutional so that the congress would be forced to open Medicare to everyone. The insurance companies would lose big time...and thats a good thing.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how this would play out given how the bill was written to satisfy the debt issues.
The precedent cited here about the Marijuana decision could be just disregarded altogether by this court. After all, that case was about dirty hippies, not free enterprise and states rights.......:sarcasm: