Oh Boy. They're Threatening To Use The Supreme Court To Overturn Healthcare

[Solomon]

The auspices have spoken.

I knew there would be something more to come concerning the dust-up between Obama and the Supreme Court.

Now the right-wing is guaranteeing that they will take it to Court if the democrats succeed in getting health care reform.

Just imagine that. After saying corporations can spend what they want in elections, they're going to say health care reform is unconstitutional?

Hoo boy. The plot thickens.

Sorry no link. Just something I keep hearing.

[jobycom]

1. So they oppose "legislating from the bench," and now they seem to oppose

legislating through the legislature. And they oppose presidential decrees. All that, unless of course they control one of those branches, then they will declare you a traitor for opposing it.

Love those people. They are the wrong side of all of history.

[karynnj]

19. Whatever happened to their support of unitary President??

[awoke_in_2003]

65. In a nutshell. nt

[Divine Discontent]

79. like deranged militiary leaders in the midst of their final moments before their collapse - they are

lashing out at everything. They are against whatever they're not in charge of, and if the next year they're in charge of that, and lose power in some other area, that other area needs to be shut down or silenced.

Talk about sore losers, man!

[Puzzler]

87. Good... maybe if we supply the GOP with cyanide pills, they'll do the "honorable thing".

To take the "deranged military leader" idea to its logical conclusion.

[tallahasseedem]

2. And these are the same people who...

constantly bash lawyers. That's right, only when they want to exploit the legal system is it okay.

I f-ing can't stand these people.

[ShortnFiery]

4. Get used to them. They are going to start taking over Congress come November. eom

[FrenchieCat]

3. Yes, here's their Case!

[vaberella]

38. LOL!! n/t

[WorseBeforeBetter]

40. HB 10 (Virginia) and HB 391 (Idaho) are the start of "their Case"...

with 30+ other states filing or proposing similar measures to reject health insurance mandates and assert state sovereignty.

[Hansel]

58. They have no state authority over Federal Tax Code or Interstate Commerce.

They are grand standing and they know it.

There is no mandate that forces you to buy private insurance. There is only a Federal surtax you have to pay if you don't. The States have no jurisdiction over Federal tax policy.

[Oregone]

5. "they're going to say health care reform is unconstitutional"

No. They are going to argue that mandating an individual to enter a private marketplace and engage in private commerce is unconstitutional.

[CreekDog]

23. which might get in the way of turning over our social security accounts to private companies

which is precisely what they want to do.

[Hansel]

60. Good point.

And probably one of the best examples of why this is just more grand standing by the anti-HCR. They will overturn Roe v Wade before this ever happens.

[Phx_Dem]

71. Isn't that what's already taking place by mandating that the taxpayers

pay the healthcare costs of those who are unsured. Reagan passed the law saying hospitals could not refuse to treat people who are poor or uninsured, and when they do the taxpayers foot the bill.

Isn't that kind of the same thing, but different? lol

[treestar]

83. It's a good constitutional law exam conundrum

The effects on interstate commerce line of cases might apply.

[DJ13]

6. The mandates give them this opportunity

If Congress and the WH had used the existing income tax mechanism to pay for it there wouldnt be much of an issue to fight on.

[Uncle Joe]

7. The Republicans will lose and they know it because the Supreme Court has a strong

corporate supremacist bent and this bill enshrines for profit "health" insurance corporations in to American Society.

Thanks for the thread, Solomon.

[Oregone]

10. Thats probably true

[Xipe Totec]

14. I was going to quote the SC Eminent Domain decision on City of New London

but I think you've nailed the point on general philosophical grounds already.

[skeptical cynic]

8. I assume their case will be related to the constitutionality of the

insurance mandate.

And the defense will most likely be based on interstate commerce.

Any lawyers out there?

[Oregone]

11. Im no lawyer but...

Is regulating commerce the same as forcing it into existence? In one case, commerce exists to be regulated, and on the other, the law is forcing an individual to engage in commerce in a private market prior to its existence.

Im not sure they are the same thing, but what do I know?

[skeptical cynic]

24. I'm fortunate to have insurance provided by my employer

and I make a significant contribution of my own for the best package they offer. I'll drop to a lower level package if the plan I have is taxed under HCR. It actually costs me more than I get back now, so any addition cost (e.g. a tax) would make the decision to go to a cheaper plan much easier. My deductible will be higher, but the overall cost will be lower.

It's forcing people to become customers of an industry that contributes nothing to healthcare, and using limited taxpayer dollars to subsidize the industry, that bothers me about the HCR package.

I hope the reconciliation process produces something more palatable.

I won't be voting for anyone who supports an insurance mandate.

Has anyone even considered that people who can't afford insurance now are probably not going to use the insurance when they get it, since it's going cost them money to buy it, and more money every time they use it (deductible, co-pay, medication co-pay)?

An insurance mandate is going to be a very sweat deal for insurance companies: customers mandated by law; federal subsidies; customers who probably will make very limited use of the insurance.

[napi21]

9. I can hardly wait to hear what grounds they plan to use!

The only thing I can think of, andd even that's iffy, is the mandate o buy ins.

[Solomon]

18. The ground I heard had nothing to do with mandates. What they

were complaining about is the "deemed" vote thing. They didn't even mention mandates.

[napi21]

20. I just heard that on MSNBC. I doubt the SCOTUS will take the case.

What can they argue when they have used that procedure themselves well over 100 times in recent years! The we were right but they're wrong won't work!

[emulatorloo]

28. I can't figure out if these people are stupid or bold-faced liars.

Are they so stupid they "forgot" they have used deem and pass?

Or do they just not give a shit and will tell any lie to poison the well?

[napi21]

33. They just don't care if they lie. After all, look al the lies

they've told about the bill. Why not keep up something that's ben working for you.

[SoFlaJet]

34. no, they're just plain liars emu

they know we know that they know but they still do it hoping the ill-informed don't know. They really are a despicable lot.

[Cha]

74. They're bald faced liars..They're just smart enough

to know how to lie.

[dmr]

89. They're unimaginative lying liars n/t

[Hansel]

61. Kudos to the 1st progressive org that starts their own lawsuit on

that was Republican law passed this way.

[Hansel]

54. They're grand standing then.

Because they know damn well that this is fully constitutional. At least it was when they used it hundreds of times in the past decade or so.

[jillan]

12. Schuster just reported on it. The Repukes probably won't take it to the Supreme Ct BUT

one of their astroturf organizations can do it.

With Roberts at the helm... this might be something to worry about.

[Hansel]

55. If they do there are a ton of Republican laws we can look at overturning nt

[arcadian]

13. This is going to be disaster for Obama.

malaise

[KingFlorez]

15. Now who is trying using the court to legislate?

More hypocrisy, they are always talking about activist judge, but now they are trying to use the court for activism.

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. If the Supreme Court overturns corporate mandates as unconstitutional

it would be a perfectly sound decision. The question then would be, do they kill the entire bill as a result, or just that part of it?

Frankly, I doubt that the Opie Roberts court would overturn ANYTHING that took money out of corporate pockets, but we'll see......

[Solomon]

21. Hannity is screaming about it now, but not about the mandate.

That's not what they are crying about. It's the "Slaughter Rule" that's unconstitutional.

They keep saying Congress can't act that way. Maybe you "mandate" guys should join the club and help them out. Apparently they're not aware that mandates as you claim are unconstitutional.

[Sebastian Doyle]

22. When I see the words "Hannity" and "Slaughter" in the same post.

I can't help but have thoughts that Agent Mike wouldn't want me to talk about :evilgrin:

[kenny blankenship]

29. The only problem they have w/ directly forcing people to enlarge the profits of megacorporations is

they didn't think of it themselves.

[Hansel]

56. You do not have to buy the insurance. You can just pay the surtax on your income tax. nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

37. Virginia first state in nation to pass anti-mandate health reform bill

http://ifawebnews.com/2010/03/11/virginia-first-state-in-nation-to-pass-anti-mandate-health-reform-bill/

While 34 other states have considered or partially passed legislation to ban any federal mandate to secure health insurance coverage, the Virginia General Assembly has passed a bill that is expected to get the signature of the state’s governor.

By an 80-17 vote, the Virginia House of Delegates passed HB 10, sponsored by Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-13th District), which states that no resident of the commonwealth shall be required to obtain or maintain individual insurance coverage. All 17 “nay” votes were cast by Democratic delegates.

Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, has already said he would sign the bill into law, making Virginia the first state in the nation to challenge any mandates that could be handed down from Washington, D.C.

~snip~

On the same day the Virginia General Assembly passed Marshall’s bill, the Idaho Senate also approved the Idaho Health Freedom Act (HB 391), which deems the individual mandate unconstitutional and permits the state to sue Congress or any other body enforcing such a mandate.

.....................

"mandates unconstitutional"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22mandates+unconstitutional%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

They're well aware, and come November, most of us will be wishing we never heard the word "mandate."

[Hansel]

57. Good luck with that.

More grand standing. The government is not forcing people to buy health insurance. They are forcing them to pay a surtax if they don't. This law does absolutely nothing to stop that and they know it.

[Massacure]

49. That would depend on how the bill is written, wouldn't it?

If the bill didn't have a severability clause, I think the entire thing would get struck down by the Supreme Court.

[wryter2000]

17. Good luck with that

They have to find someone who's been wronged by this bill and work the case through the system all the way up to the Supreme Court.

[BlueIdaho]

25. The longer they fight this - now using trial lawyers and courts

The worse they will look in peoples eyes. If the Supremes step in to kill health care reform right after (1) their unpopular decision about corporate citizenship and (2) Thomas' wife's decision to start her own little tea party group there will be a bloodbath - both from the left and the right.

Roberts will find his head on a pike.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

26. While they're at it they might as well go for Medicare and Soc Sec too. That'll

guarantee their indefinite re election. :rofl:

[DFLforever]

27. They must figure they've lost the legislative battle

if they're falling back on the courts.

[Cha]

30. KickR..It's not just HRC that's evident in the dustup with the SC5

clarence thomas' wife is now a high profile freakin' teabag.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-thomas14-2010mar14,0,6505384.story

[zulchzulu]

31. The case of "Helping Americans" vs. "Greedy Slime"

SCOTUS might be close in the final decision.

:crazy:

[Cronus Protagonist]

32. The mandates are surely unconstitutional

And I will not be paying them.

[harun]

35. No one will care if you don't.

I don't think they are constitutional either, but I don't think it will impact enough people negatively to ever get to court.

[Vinca]

36. This would be a good thing. If mandates to buy private insurance

turn out to be unconstitutional, they'll have to go to Plan B: a government option. It really bugs the hell out of me that people will be forced to buy insurance from the same companies that would gleefully pull their plug to save a dime.

[DCBob]

39. This will be entertaining... The evil GOPers never give up.

And if this doesn't work, military coup will be their next option.

[BR_Parkway]

41. What if SCOTUS said the mandate was unconstitutional but everything else

was left in place? It would move the insurance companies to demand a public option just to get the really sick (non profitable) folks off their roles in a hurry.

I don't see how the SCOTUS could rule that Congress can't pass a law saying that the companies can't drop people who've been paying when they get sick or that they can't eliminate someone for pre-existing conditions of most of the rest of what's in the bill.

[librechik]

42. I will sue for equal representation: I should get Healthcare at 55, since Medicare

covers only over 65--that's discrimination!

[Ter]

63. So is not allowing those over 35 in the NYPD

Or not allowing a 20 year old to have a beer. Discrimination, but still legal.

[smiley_glad_hands]

43. Insurance mandates have been around for sometime now. Anyone here drive a car? nt

[Vattel]

44. Irrelevant. Those mandates aren't federal.

It's not clear to me that the commerce clause can be successfully used to justify federally mandated purchases of private health insurance. If the question does manage to get its day in court, I wouldn't be surprised if the Court rejected the mandates.

[backscatter712]

45. It's not even a hard mandate.

It's a surtax - you pay it when you file your 1040, if you aren't covered by medical insurance.

Last time I checked, taxation was perfectly constitutional.

[Vattel]

47. It depends on what the tax is for.

Taxing to penalize not purchasing private health insurance is arguably unconstitutional.

[smiley_glad_hands]

48. Then how do the federal government and states already get away with it?

Insurance requirements by the feds and states have around for a long time now. Liabilities in every sector of our modern life have to be covered and often there is a penalty for not doing so.

[Hello_Kitty]

69. Those liabilities are conditional upon some other activity.

If you have a mortgage on a house or a car loan you'll usually have to carry some insurance as required by your lender. Liability insurance is a requirement in most places for the privilege of driving. You may be required to carry business insurance if you own a business. But a health insurance mandate is requiring people to pay protection money to a corporation simply for existing and breathing.

[Hansel]

62. The tax is not for punishment. It's do defray the cost the gov has to pay

because you don't purchase insurance. It may seem like a punishment, but the government is going to pull up scads of documents showing that they owe tons of money because people are gambling, losing and not ever paying into the pot. Thus the government is picking up the tab.

That is going to be their argument and they are going to win it.

[smiley_glad_hands]

46. Not irrelevant.

And by the way, how do you think the federal government enforces health and safety regulations in the workplace? The commerce clause. No state or corporation can hide from federal law and regulations in this global economy.

[Hello_Kitty]

68. How many fucking times does this stupid ass analogy need to be debunked here?

Car ownership is NOT mandatory, therefore having car insurance is not a mandatory condition of being a citizen.

[boppers]

81. How would you feel about a $10,000, per weapon, gun tax?

A $10,000 per blog, blog tax?

[Grand Taurean]

50. See, the "rule of law" only applies to the laws

that the Conservatives like.

[JBoy]

51. Paging Orly Taitz!

[Hansel]

59. LOL!

[ncteechur]

84. I thought it was Oily Taint

[warm regards]

52. They can avoid this challenge if they abandon the "deem" rule and

simply vote the bill up or down.

Nevertheless, I'm quite certain that other challenges will follow. This thing will be held up in court for many, many years.

[Hansel]

53. I wonder how many Republican laws would be overturned if they were

actually successful in the courts. All of them there folks who got those great big Bush tax cuts would have to pay them back.

This is a maneuver that has been used many times and mostly by Republicans. This is an up or down vote, because they still have to vote in order for the law to be deemed passed. If you really believe they are not going to vote you need to look into this a little deeper. They still have to vote.

The courts are not going to overturn this law because of Deem and Pass because that would open the flood gates for overturning laws, and mostly Republican ones.

[warm regards]

64. I don't know and really don't care.

This process looks very sleazy.

[Solomon]

66. What. It's only sleazy when democrats do it?

[warm regards]

67. Are suggesting that Dems should be as sleazy as Pukes?

[Solomon]

80. No. You're the one calling it sleazy. Right out of Hannity's

mouth.

I don't think it's sleazy at all.

Nice try. But utter fail.

[warm regards]

82. Okay, then, why must it be so complicated? Why not just have an up or down vote?

You don't seem to understand that this is the kind of stuff that turns people OFF. At the same time, you probably wonder why Congress has a disapproval rating of 76%.

This is stupid and it is clear that I am not the only one who thinks that way.

[Solomon]

86. Look. The Bottom Line. All societies favor unaminity and

consensus. If not a 3/4th vote and if not, sometimes you just gotta go straight out majority rule.

Bottom line.

When one side wants to act like jackasses and not participate honorably, then fuck 'em, majority rules.

I see nothing whatsoever complicated at all about it as you do. Seems really simple to me.

[stevietheman]

88. I don't see how a legal, constitutional process is sleazy. n/t

n/t

[liberalpragmatist]

70. The mandate is just structured as a tax

The constitutional objections don't hold up. It's structured as a small tax, with an exemption for those with health insurance. Much as the tax code has numerous exemptions.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

72. Right wing are the enemy of the people

[Arkana]

73. Hahahaha...good luck with that.

[Bryn]

75. Why didn't the democrats do the same when the repugs gave us Medicare Part D and Advantages!!

in addition to Medicare thus having to pay MORE!! x(

[fadedrose]

76. I'm too old to resettle in Canada or Mexico.

Progressives going to jail maybe?

[golfguru]

77. First Al Gore, now HCR eom

[moondust]

78. Fighting tooth and nail for more sickness, death, and bankruptcy.

Who on earth would vote for the scoundrels? :shrug:

[Ishoutandscream2]

85. So, they're wanting "activist judges"

Their hypocrisy is mind-numbing.

[ibegurpard]

90. The authors of the recent corporate money=free speech decision

aren't going to be taking money out of the hands of the Insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.
Maybe the good to come out of all of this is that these idiots will wake up and realize that we're ALL getting screwed by the same people.

[northernlights]

91. do not confuse health CARE with health INSURANCE

this is health INSURANCE reform. Really, the Health INSURANCE PROFITABILITY ACCELERATION ACT.

It has nothing, NOTHING, to do with health CARE.

You can force millions of people to fork over a trillion dollars to the health INSURANCE industry.

You cannot force the health INSURANCE industry to deliver one fucking penny's worth of health CARE.