The American Spectator : Supremes About to Decide Which Obamacare Cases Make the Cut

Text Size

The Right Prescription

Supremes About to Decide Which Obamacare Cases Make the Cut

By David Catron on 11.9.11 @ 6:09AM

Justices scheduled to discuss five separate ACA petitions on Thursday.

When the U.S. Supreme Court is in session, Friday afternoons are typically reserved for an exclusive conclave in which the justices discuss petitions from various litigants who hope the Court will condescend to review their cases. This week the Justices’ Conference will be moved up to Thursday, to accommodate the federal holiday, and it promises to be a busy meeting. The justices are scheduled to consider no fewer than five petitions for certiorari involving Obamacare: four from plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the unpopular law and one lonely petition filed in its defense by the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ). Because the constitutional questions raised by these petitions are grave, complex and manifold, most constitutional scholars believe the Court will agree to “grant cert” in at least one.

The highest profile petition involves Florida v. HHS, the constitutional challenge whose plaintiffs include officials from 26 states. Last August, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a bipartisan ruling declaring Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional. Interestingly, that ruling has been appealed to the Supreme Court not merely by the vanquished DOJ, but by the victorious plaintiffs as well. The former’s appeal was inevitable, of course. And, while obviously pleased that mandate was struck down, the plaintiffs also want the decision reviewed because they believe the Eleventh Circuit should have followed the lower court’s lead in striking down the entire law pursuant to its lack of a severability clause. In addition, they also think the appeals court gave short shrift to their “commandeering” claim.

The “commandeering” issue arises from Obamacare’s dramatic expansion of Medicaid eligibility. The basic argument made by the plaintiffs is that the fiscal pressure associated with that expansion is so coercive that it is, in effect, an unconstitutional “commandeering” of the states. David Kopel, who teaches Advanced Constitutional Law at Denver University, explains it thus: “Under Obamacare, states must either: (1) Drastically expand Medicaid eligibility, thus setting themselves on the road to long-term fiscal ruin; or (2) Be punished with a complete cut-off of all Medicaid funds, thus forcing the states to double their own Medicaid spending (a fiscal impossibility) in order to maintain benefits for current recipients.” This, the states maintain, is a violation of the Tenth Amendment and should have been struck down accordingly.

These concerns notwithstanding, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision to strike down the mandate guaranteed that Obamacare would be argued before the Supreme Court. Not only did the Eleventh Circuit disagree with Sixth Circuit on the constitutionality of the mandate, the decision forced the Obama administration to suddenly reverse its foot-dragging strategy and file its own petition for certiorari. The DOJ’s official position on this pirouette is that the administration anxious to have the issue decided once and for all, but this claim should be taken with several tons of salt. First, it conflicts with actual behavior of the Justice Department over the past year. More importantly, the DOJ’s request for review rather slyly raises the specter of the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), which is almost certainly a last ditch effort at delay.

Specifically, the DOJ’s petition asks the Court to decide “whether the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the [ACA] is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.” The AIA forbids court challenges to taxes before they have gone into effect, and it is obviously irrelevant unless the individual mandate and its accompanying penalty are construed as a tax. This proposition has been rejected by nearly all of the judges who have ruled on it. Moreover, the DOJ itself conceded six months ago that “the Anti-Injunction Act is not applicable” to the mandate question. Thus, the Justice Department’s lawyers can only be raising this issue again in the forlorn hope that the Court will use it as a pretext to avoid ruling on the individual mandate until after the upcoming presidential election.

Not coincidentally, the AIA issue is addressed head on in another of the cert petitions to be discussed by the justices on Thursday. The plaintiffs in Liberty University v. Geithner ask the justices if AIA prevents the courts from addressing the authority of Congress to enact such a far-reaching law “when the challenged mandates are penalties, not taxes, where the government argues Congress never intended the AIA to apply, and where the Petitioners are currently being forced to comply with various parts of the law …” Considering that the President himself has repeatedly asserted that the mandate is not a tax, and that his Justice Department says AIA doesn’t apply, common sense suggests that the Supreme Court can’t possibly answer that question in the affirmative. But these people move in mysterious ways.

The remaining two petitions to be considered on Thursday involve Thomas More Law Center v. Obama and NFIB v. Sebelius. The former presents the Court with the following unambiguous question: “Does Congress have authority under the Commerce Clause to require private citizens to purchase and maintain ‘minimum essential’ healthcare insurance coverage under penalty of federal law?” The latter returns to Obamacare’s conspicuous dearth of language, a severability clause, that would permit the rest of the law to stand if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional: “The question presented is whether the ACA must be invalidated in its entirety because it is nonseverable from the individual mandate that exceeds Congress’ limited and enumerated powers under the Constitution.”

Conspicuously absent from the cases to be discussed on Thursday is Virginia v. Sebelius. True to form, the DOJ has been dilatory in filing a response to Virginia’s petition and therefore it can’t be included in this week’s Justices’ Conference. But the only unique issue Virginia v. Sebelius raises involves whether the Old Dominion has standing to challenge Obamacare based on a state law passed primarily to preempt a nationwide insurance mandate. That is by no means an easy question to answer, and the Court can easily select cases from the scheduled five that cover the most important questions surrounding Obamacare and its egregious mandate without the benefit of Virginia’s petition.

So, what will the Court do? Perhaps nothing. As Lyle Denniston points out, “The Justices have the discretion to grant all, some, or none, since none reached the Court as a mandatory appeal.” However, few observers believe the justices will take the last alternative, particularly in light of the DOJ’s petition. Brad Joondeph of Santa Clara Law suggests, “[We] are now probably looking at oral argument in the last week of March.” That time table suggests a ruling in June, right in the midst of the election cycle. That should spice up the presidential race.

About the Author

David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (102) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Mac Jehoff| 11.9.11 @ 6:44AM

Who was the congressman from Michigan who said that the mandate was necessary so that gummint could control the people?

WRTolkas| 11.9.11 @ 8:15AM

Dear Mac Jehoff,

I'm in Michigan but unfortunately I don't know to who to attribute your quote. However, there are plenty of likely suspects: "little debbie" stabenow, carl levin, john conyers, john dingle.... The list is long and terrifying. My apologies to all of you that these thugs are from my state. With the exception of little debbie who is not a thug. Dirty harry reid's finger-puppet hasn't the brainpower to be a thug. No, she is just a useful idiot.

Anthony| 11.9.11 @ 9:19AM

I think it was Congressman Dingell.

Purple Lips| 11.9.11 @ 9:26AM

Rep Conyers

Mike D.| 11.9.11 @ 9:50AM

John "walking dead" Dingell.

Purpleguy| 11.9.11 @ 6:42PM

Nice. Pick on the old guy that's served his country for over 50 yrs in the House for a slip of the tongue. Nice, real nice.

Mike D.| 11.9.11 @ 8:29PM

go f uck yourself, leftist. The guy is a socialist and freedom killer. I know, I live in his district.

RCV| 11.9.11 @ 10:13PM

Then he was freely elected by your neighbors to represent them.

Mike D.| 11.10.11 @ 8:32AM

Nobody said he wasn't nitwit, doesn't change what he is does it?

Mike D.| 11.10.11 @ 8:37AM

"the people need to be controlled" don't bother your ilk does it? Remember everything cuts both ways leftist.

Purpleguy| 11.10.11 @ 12:46PM

Well some do ... like your mouth. Grow up and have an adult discussion once.

Mike D.| 11.10.11 @ 2:54PM

Well, leftist, thats about the answer I figured you'd come up with. Remember leftist, we are all going on the same ride and you may not like the trip when its over. Difference is, I am prepared for it. Now go play troll.

Gary B| 11.9.11 @ 6:47AM

Expect the Supreme Court to issue half of a decision. It's what they do. Also, expect the Obama administration to ignore any decision that is contrary to their position. It's what they do.

Finally, expect tortured logic from the court about not interfering with an election. Where will this leave American business owners, taxpayers and the states? Well, twisting in the wind, of course. It's what they always do.

Purple Lips| 11.9.11 @ 9:25AM

Oh the opinion will be tortured in the extreme. Look for Justice Kennedy to write a 100 page opinion (excluding footnotes) that would take the combined legal talents of Learned Hand and Robert Bork to decipher. Obama will win in a 5-4 decision.

Gary B| 11.9.11 @ 2:31PM

I wouldn't be surprised.

Purpleguy| 11.9.11 @ 6:43PM

Getting ready for a defeat I see...

Gary B| 11.9.11 @ 6:48AM

Mr. Catron,

The name of your blog is priceless.

POST American| 11.9.11 @ 6:54AM

----And speaking of 'health' and the judiciary----

WHEN is 'engineering' the food supply
for EUGENICS (ie GM food designed for
organ failure, cancer and intergenerational
steriity ---etc.) going to be addressed as
the CAPITOL CRIME it surely, surely is????

-------or even, WHEN are any of the rectum
worshippers in our Rockefeller MEE--dia
going to raise the issue????

-----------------------------------------------WHEN????

Bydand76| 11.9.11 @ 8:57AM

When you stop smoking the cat food ding-a-ling.

Lee Ghume | 11.9.11 @ 10:22AM

PA told Moe Blotz in a post a couple weeks ago that he huffs chloroform. You can see the exchange after the article about China's cyber warfare on TAS from the Thursday or Friday of that week.

Gary B| 11.9.11 @ 7:02AM

Mr. Catron,

In another article you said, "And, considering the denunciations to which the Court was subjected pursuant to Bush v. Gore, the justices may indeed be reluctant to join the judicial fray in 2012."

This should be conservatives' greatest fear. I believe the odds of this happening are pretty good because it seems the justices greatest joy is in issuing babble-packed, non-decisions.

Purpleguy| 11.9.11 @ 6:45PM

They were wrong to interfere in the election... the Constitution clearly lays out what's to be done if there is a discrepancy. They are a political elite and showed their colors. The fact they hesitate now is what they should do in a political, not legal matter.

Mimi| 11.9.11 @ 8:16AM

How come the Supremes acted so quickly on the BUSH/GORE thing ? I say its time to ACT QUICKLY on the Obama-care issue. The whole country has been at a standstill with this atrocity hanging over our heads....the poverty is growing by the hour, the suffering of the people is an outrage.
Its high TIME the Black Robes of this NATION make a decision....any more DELAY is un-thinkable!!!

Mimi| 11.9.11 @ 8:23AM

They need to put the GOOD and the WELFARE and the SECURITY of this NATION at the TOP of their PRIORITY LIST. I can't think of any time in our HISTORY that the Supreme Court was urgently needed more than NOW!!!

Gary B| 11.9.11 @ 10:03AM

On BIG issues, such as this one, they usually punt, leaving the most important portions of the issue to the lower courts to hash out for a few more years. This leaves conservatives banking their heads against the wall. Sure hope I'm wrong.

Purpleguy| 11.9.11 @ 6:47PM

the country voted, it's representatives passed the law, and it's not unconstitutional. But the sooner they get this circus behind us the better. Congress clearly has the authority to tax the people, which is what the penalty for not participating is. Mandate is irrelevant

Mimi| 11.9.11 @ 9:48PM

aAsk a mother who's child goes to JAIL over this mandate. The dem's make criminals for not throwing money into the pot of Obama-care....Tell me this is O.K. Forcing people to BUY something is NEW and will lead us away from FREEDOM! The Pols should be making plans for us to be MORE free not LESS!

Purpleguy| 11.10.11 @ 12:52PM

No jail term involved whatsoever. Where in the world did you get that little lie? Fixed News?
No one is forcing you to buy healthcare - you can opt out and pay the penalty for your "choice". If you have healthcare now, there won't be any changes the government will be enforcing. Forcing people to do things is not new, however. As a young man you are forced to register for the Selective Service as one example. Filing your Federal income tax is another. You aren't really "forced" but you face the consequences if you don't comply with U.S. Law. Otherwise you are a lawbreaker.

KPOM| 11.11.11 @ 11:02AM

It's not that simple. Otherwise, the government could mandate anything under the guise of a tax. For example, they could impose a $250,000 "head tax" on everyone, with a $250,000 "tax credit" for buying an American car, or anything else they wanted to mandate.

Plus, President Obama and the administration stated over and over again that the mandate was not a tax. They didn't start using the "tax" argument until it became clear that the constitutional challenges had substance.

Purple Lips| 11.9.11 @ 9:19AM

We all know how this will end. Justice Kennedy will not want to be known as the man to kill ObamaCare. He will demand a very narrowly written opinion that satisfies at least rhetorically the anger of the Right. But, at the same time, said opinion will keep the individual mandate alive, in some way shape or other.

Look for the signs from the appeals court. Yesterday's ruling by the DC circuit court of appeals was authored by none other than conservative justice Larry Silbermann. He upheld the mandate. Bad news for conservatives.

Purpleguy| 11.9.11 @ 6:48PM

Agreed. Obamacares will remain the law of the land.

Anthony| 11.9.11 @ 9:28AM

I hope at their Thursday conclave, the colleagial Supremes will have an honest discuss as to how Obozo's former Solicitor General, Justice Kagen can sit on this case???

Thomas North | 11.9.11 @ 11:42AM

I hope so too Anthony. It needs to happen

RCV| 11.9.11 @ 10:17PM

It won't happen. Justices decide solely themselves when recusal is called for, and it is clearly not in this case.

Dave | 11.9.11 @ 10:22AM

The smart money, at least so far, seems to be going with odds that Anthony Kennedy will tapping the deciding gavel in this deal. That, and there's always the recusal factor. From my section in the cheap seats, "there ain't no way" Justice Elena will recuse herself from sitting on this case. Meanwhile, the usual parrots on the left will be crowing for Justice Thomas to recuse his-own-self.

SOS.

As Judge Judy often says: "There's a whole lot of "who shot John" in this case. But when the Supremes finally get around to adding-up their final scorecards, the answers may be clear as to why Barack Obama arranged reserve seating for the first-run premiere of "Butch Kagen and the Sundance Sotomayor."

If the final score goes 5-4 Left, we'll ALL be forking over fifty bucks each for a small tub of taste-free popcorn at the downtown Metro-Plex. And don't even ask about Ju-Ju-Beans

Can't wait for the sequel.

Thomas North | 11.9.11 @ 11:41AM

The mandate is unconstitutional, a no-brainer. Neither Congress nor the majority of U.S. citizens have ANY constitutional power to force a minority of citizens to do anything they don't choose to do, especially involving their private individual health care and personal assets (money). The doing of nothing is not a taxable event - it's an non-event. And then there is the ludicrous and illegal decision by the Court of Appeals for D.C. this week that cites NO legal basis for its ruling, just whims of two judges. They actually try to extend the Commerce Clause to require, rather than regulate, commerce on the part of private individuals, and give Congress UNLIMITED power to do anything if it can point to some national problem, real or contrived. If that is allowed to stand by the Supreme Court in even part of the U.S., our country will no longer be a free or democratic country at all. Personal freedom will have been killed off by the courts, unelected federal demagogues in black robes.

RCV| 11.9.11 @ 2:32PM

Despite this screed, the reality is that there are all sorts of things we are required by law to do: send children to school, pay taxes, obey traffic signals, drive cars on the right hand side of the road, install smoke alarms in residences, etc., etc.

The opinion by Judge Sliberman -- a conservative Reagan appointee -- upholding the individual mandate in the Health Care Reform bill is a well-reasoned opinion, well-grounded in law. I expect that it will be affirmed by the Supreme Court, in a decision that will even get the vote of Justice Scalia, a respected conservative Constitutional scholar.

JP| 11.9.11 @ 5:00PM

RCV,
Outside of pay-taxes you list things that state and counties require, which are no business of the bureacurats in the Beltway.

Since Congress can now mandate about anything, perhaps you would have no problem with HHS mandating that everyone get tested for HIV, and that the results of those tests can be used to determine the amount of healthcare and individual would receive, as well as determine what kind of risk he/she poses. Besides testing, HHS would have the right to determine how many sex partners an individual has had regardless of orientation. Since health care costs are now considered interstate commerce, Congress has a blank check to regulate everything; and besides obesity and smoking, "risky" sex practices (multiple partners and sodomy) result in tens of billions of dollars of additional expenses. And since Congress now has the power to impose remedial penalties on smokers and the obese, promiscuous behavior and homosexuality can also be regulated -of course by professionals from the Betlway. As it turns out, William O'Douglas was wrong; Congress does belong in the bedroom, and you will be thanking Progressives for that.

Jack London| 11.9.11 @ 5:49PM

You're right - with a health mandate we are just one step away from rounding people up and sending them to the gas chambers.

Purpleguy| 11.9.11 @ 6:52PM

The government can already to do that, thanks to Bush-Cheney - call you a terrorist ... you're totally in their power. You missed the boat if you concerned NOW - should have been 8 years ago.

JP| 11.9.11 @ 7:14PM

Jack, there will be no need for gas chambers. They will just send them to Hospice to die. HHS already has created several committees with powers to "bend the cost-curve. Obese people and smokers are already on thier radar. What our Masters can give, they can also take away. It already occurs in the UK. And we hear almost weekly how the "risky" drive up medical costs. But, there are other behaviors besides smoking and eating too much that will be addressed. Sexually transmitted diseases and AIDs actually cost this nation as much as the obese do. It costs tens of thousands of dollars per year per HIV positive person just in medication alone. Add in treatments for other STDs and the costs are staggering. And we know our Masters are all about bending the cost curve.

George S| 11.9.11 @ 5:46PM

Silberman's opinion is neither well reasoned nor well grounded in law. The summary is that the inferior courts have no business reigning in Congress since the Supreme Court has been increasing the power of the Congress over the past 70 years. From that standpoint, he is correct: the District Court cannot all of a sudden put the brakes on the commerce clause where the Supreme Court has not previously weighed in. It is buck passing, much the same way SCOTUS passes down cases to the lower courts for clarification. The lower courts have usually been reluctant to second guess legislation, they leave that to SCOTUS. That's why I do not read too much into this decision.

Also, the things we are "required" to purchase, we are really not. Laws are for obeying, controlling behavior, not economic decisions. Taxes are general, not specifically targeted (you do not choose what to fund). If you have no kids, you do not have to send them to school. If you have no car, you are immune from the keep right laws. If you choose to live on the street, you need not worry about being jailed for failure to buy a smoke alarm. But health insurance? There is no way out until you die. Government's wet dream.

What happens if the government mandates you buy health insurance and no one is around to sell it to you?

Jack London| 11.9.11 @ 5:53PM

'If you have no kids, you do not have to send them to school.'

With insight like this you'll go far George.

Purpleguy| 11.9.11 @ 6:56PM

Whether you have a car or kids, you still pay for schools and roads, snow removal etc. The difference here is we all have a body and if we don't all pay, we all pay for those who don't. That is not behavior I condone. If you don't like Obamacare, pay your penalty fee, opt out and shut up. At least everyone will pay their own way, finally.

JP| 11.9.11 @ 7:15PM

And if the federal government raises the penalty to say $10,000/year?

George S| 11.9.11 @ 8:41PM

Behavior you don't condone? Entschuldigen Sie meine frechheit Mein Fuhrer.

Purpleguy| 11.10.11 @ 2:12PM

Of course, when u don't like something, it's Hitler time.. is that a Beer? How astute of you, mein Herr. Das ist aber schade. We all pay, one way or the other. Sieg Heil!

vtwin| 11.9.11 @ 11:52AM

Yesterday, in America, fascist creep was halted on three major fronts.
(1) Ohio, voters slowed the assault on the Middle Class, by restoring collective bargaining for public workers.
(2) Arizona, voters rejected racism, by removing Sen. Russell Pearce, the Papers-Please author.
(3)Mississippi, voters rejected the Religious Right, by protecting women dominion over their bodies.

Jack London| 11.9.11 @ 12:07PM

It's a great start in taking our country back. Decent people will prevail.

nohussein| 11.9.11 @ 12:30PM

You're right, the hussein will lose, as well as his OWS dregs. God Bless American and all commies be damned.

nohussein| 11.9.11 @ 12:28PM

1. Unions are communists.
2. Apprehending criminals is NOT racism.
3. Abortion is murder.
4. You're an idiot.

Purpleguy| 11.9.11 @ 7:08PM

1. Give back you vacation, your 40 hour work week, your minimum wage, your pension, put your children to work, and give back all your other benefits - now you have true capitalism and no unionism.
2. Who's a criminal? The man who employs the undocumented worker or the worker doing a job? Until both are, neither are.
3. So is the death penalty and war. Why is it you people are oh so for the unborn, but couldn't care less about the lives already here?
4. Turn of Rush Loudmouth and Fixed News, now look in the mirror - 'nuf said

JP| 11.9.11 @ 7:17PM

I've never worked for a union. Not sure what your point is. BTW, there are over 10,000 unemployed former union workers where I live. Thier jobs went to right to work states.

Purpleguy| 11.10.11 @ 2:18PM

Who's employers are foreign companies with subsidiaries in the U.S. Shouldn't you be complaining about the loss of high paid jobs in the US, instead of promoting the areas (the old South) where wages are less? Who do you think benefits ? The corporations of course. Consumers, yes, but why is it the right is insistent on a race to the bottom for the middle class, while the top 1% is protected with tax dodges, tax cuts and the like. Unless you are in the 1%, you are supporting the wrong people. Why don't the States with Right to Work laws change their laws to allow collective bargaining to increase their workers wages and their benefits and take it out of the pockets of the 1%? I'm gonna guess that would increase everyone's wages that visit this blog over the long run... How dumb to go the other way. You don't see the price of cars going down do you? where do you think the extra money goes - not to the workers as you already know.

RCV| 11.9.11 @ 2:33PM

It was indeed a reassuring and sobering verdict at the polls that presages a good result for Democrats in 2012.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 11.9.11 @ 5:23PM

I don't transparently bother with tranparently silly it transparently doesn't take a transparent genius to transparently see transparent Obama is tranparently smart and transparently honest and has transparently made transparent America a transparently better place to live through his transparent social mastery and his transparent political mastery and his transparent economic mastery as transparently anyone can transparently see by transparently observing not only how much transparently better off each and every American transparently is by transparently looking around them transparently but how much transparently better off each and every American tranparently will be with even more transparent Obama four more transparent years transparently matters.

Purpleguy| 11.9.11 @ 7:09PM

ramble on...

Reprobate Charlatan Pimplepuss| 11.9.11 @ 7:14PM

lie stupidly on...

RCV| 11.9.11 @ 9:17PM

Skip, you're even more incoherent than usual today, which I assume is the result of the vote in Mississippi. Man up. Tomorrow is another day.

skip| 11.10.11 @ 12:28PM

...said the douchebag asswipe, and sanctimonious hypocrite, who 'supported Obama from the beginning';

who supported Obama and his stimulus, that for a mere cost of $862 billion (a cost exceeding all of the Iraq War in its entirety) saw a loss of at least 2.5 million jobs, even though government jobs increased 400,000;

who, in what can only be deemed pathetically, supports Obama and his stimulus II that, in what can only be deemed despicably, would see more of the same for a mere additional cost of $447 billion more;

yet who is such an idiot, that he just posted how 'reassuring and sobering' the current state of affairs is, as an indication for the future good results of even more Obama, and his party and policies, that he's 'supported from the beginning', and not only because Obama and his party and policies, at least, 'care about human beings AFTER they're born';

who once again proves to be the epitome of a liberal the magnificent John II described 9.4.11 @ 5:31PM as:

"A liberal is a person of small learning and large ego who is eager to be counted among the self-appointed stewards of a culture slouching toward degeneracy";

and who once again proves that Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus provides a public service.

Douchebag asswipe. Sanctimonious Hypocrite.

Degenerate Idiot.

RCV| 11.10.11 @ 6:17PM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....zzzzzzzzz...z..z

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 11.10.11 @ 9:00PM

I don't bother with silly responding with coherence on readers pondering whether the level of coherence in my response is more or less or just as typically coherent as usual,

my response consisting of the letter z posted 16 consecutive times,
followed by the decimal point posted 5 consecutive times,
followed by the letter z posted 9 consecutive times,
followed by the decimal posted 3 consecutive times,
followed by the letter z 1 time,
followed by the decimal point 2 times,
followed by the letter z 1 time,

ironically bringing the number of times I have posted the letter z in my responses to just shy of 15 trillion of the little suckers all in coherent reponses of amazingly zinging rebuttals,

on readers also pondering coherencewise that I am a 64 year lifelong scholar of both the Bible and the Constitution,

on readers pondering all my coherence in a reponse to a post that referred to the magnificent John II, who on 9.3.11 @ 5:17PM provided:

"A liberal is a person whose thoughts are so meager and whose feelings are so insistent that his caressing fondness for these thoughts and feelings drives him to repeat himself endlessly",

or was it endlezzly,

on readers pondering how I am the epitome of this very definition,

and on readers pondering whether the level of what a douchebag asswipe I am is more than usual or just typical,

and on readers pondering whether the level of my sanctimonious hypocrisy is more than usual or just typical,

not to mention readers pondering whether the level of my degenerate idiocy is more than usual or just typical, matters.

JP| 11.9.11 @ 7:20PM

If Kasich did what was done in Wisconsin (exempt police and fire depts) the bill would have passed. And back to reality, Ohio will continue to be left out in the cold. Not one major firm will move there, while many will continue to leave.

And I seriously doubt the voters will reward the Dems in 2012. Over 65% of Ohio voters voted to opt out of ObamaCare. When Medicare pateints get turned away next year, and many firms simply drop healthcare benefits, the Dems will get the blame.

Augusta| 11.9.11 @ 3:51PM

1. Forcing workers to join, and pay dues to, a little club that donates to Democrats whom said workers may or may not approve of in order to keep their jobs = Fascism.
2. Allowing illegal aliens from all nations to commit crimes against citizens, and collect myriad benefits without paying taxes hurts those middle class folks you claim to love.
3. Depriving anyone the right to life without due process = fascism. [BTW, there are many among the non-religious who are against abortion]. And what about all those future women who were not allowed to live? Care about their dominion?
4. But it's all good as long as YOU personally don't have to give up a single damn thing. Hypocrisy = Leftism.

Purpleguy| 11.9.11 @ 7:17PM

1. you join a union because the majority of workers voted for it and it's rules... and they elect the leaders that call the shots - that's called Democracy, twit.
2. All workers pay taxes, period... unless the employer is breaking the law... and they don't share in all the benefits the taxes provide, so they give more than they take, idiot.
3. If a fetus cannot live outside the woman, it is part of the woman, just as her arm is... for her to decide what is her fate and that of the fetus. This crap that "life begins at conception" is baloney. Life begins when God allows you to be born or when the woman he has given free will to decides to carry to term and you are born. The Bible says nothing about the sanctity of the fetus. Period.
4. Oh you mean like giving more in taxes to help your country that has been overburdened for 30 years by Republican president's 10 Trillion dollars in debt? Look back and you will find out that is a fact.

vtwin| 11.9.11 @ 7:19PM

You could argue that forcing workers to join and pay dues to union as condition of employment is wrong, as is binding arbitration as a condition of employment, but it is not fascism. Is it any less egregious to use some of one’s union dues on a campaign you don’t support than for a corporation to use some of the money you paid for a product or service likewise?

Addressing the “illegal aliens” problem, the result of businesses desire for an exploitable workforce, by requiring individuals, especially those of color, to prove at the threat of imprisonment, they are legally in this country is fascism and smacks of racism.

"Depriving anyone the right to life without due process = fascism." Ok, but what do you call it when a government takes control of the only thing you come into this life with, your body, if not fascism?

Good or bad, I don't intend to yield to fascist wearing Swastikas or bearing Crosses.

JP| 11.9.11 @ 5:06PM

Yes, yes!!! And what is Ohio's current unemployment rate? What is its current account defecit? (hint, almost $10 billion). And how many new auto manufacturers have built plants in Ohio in recent years? Compare Ohio to right-to-work states; you will find plenty of new BMW, Mercedes, Toyoyta, Nissan, Honda, and Volkswagen plants in right-to-work state like South Carolina. As a matter of fact, our nation's manufacturing is steadily moving there whether the unions like it or not. So, Ohio unionists can celebrate an empty victory. If anything, it will seal its fate.

Purpleguy| 11.9.11 @ 7:20PM

That's right, because the South is stupid, the rest of the country should fall down to their level of income? Did you miss that they are paid by foreign companies? So you prefer the Japanese and Korean companies to an American Standard of Living? Really? Why aren't you pushing for unions in the States that ban them to raise the Standard of living in the Southern States?

JP| 11.9.11 @ 7:25PM

The average wage of a Nissan worker in Alabama: $55/hour (includes benefits).

The average wage of a GM worker in Ohio" $105/hour.

Volkswagen is completing new plants in right to work states (Texas), and Catepillar is steadily moving its manufacturing southward (esp Texas). Boeing is divesting its manufacturing in Washington and moving it to the Southeast.

Union states are quickly going the way of Greece and Italy. Illionois, Michigan, and Ohio are in rapid decay, which obviously will continue.

Rick H.| 11.10.11 @ 8:47AM

It's the leeches in the public sector unions that are bleeding the middle class dry you moron.
Why are those fronts any more "major" than what happened in VA or the huge defeat for obamacare in OH or the huge defeat for tax increases in CO a month or two ago, for example? That's like a damn liberal, cherry picking results to prove something that isn't happening.

Purpleguy| 11.10.11 @ 2:24PM

Very good, you have memorized the Fixed News talking points.... swallowed it hook line and sinker did ya? The Union movement is what created the middle class and as they go, so goes the middle class. Go look it up, if you're not too lazy to verify facts. Not everything is rosy about a union, but your alternative is what? A corporation? Now they really have your benefit at heart, huh? With world class profits abounding in the corporate world, why are they not providing jobs that we need? Because they couldn't care less .. profit is their only motive and until buyers start buying they won't start hiring. It's a well known vicious cycle that the Republicans simply do not understand.

nohussein| 11.9.11 @ 12:25PM

If husseincare isn't communism, what is?

vtwin| 11.9.11 @ 1:16PM

Unfortunately, only regulation of the healthcare industry, I would have preferred a collective approach along the lines of our collective approach to national defense, public safety, criminal Justice, public education, transportation…

Drunken Sailor| 11.9.11 @ 1:47PM

All perfect examples of the goverments abilities for waste, fraud, and abuse. Yep, that would lower our healthcare cost

vtwin| 11.9.11 @ 3:02PM

True, but waste, fraud, and abuse are NOT the exclusive province of government, the Wall Street financial meltdown being a prime example, it is a failing of human nature.

JP| 11.9.11 @ 4:37PM

A good indication of the fear ObamaCare is generating out there is the price of group health care. On average, premiums and co-pays have surged 20% since the passage of ObamaCare. Seven states (both red and blue) have passed laws to ration Medicare and Medicaid due to continued cost escalations. Obama promised that both would go down after implementation.

The total GDP of the US stands at around $13 trillion. At this rate, health care costs will consume over $2 trillion by 2014, and continue to surge towards $5 trillion by 2020. ObamaCare is going to be to the US what the Treat of Versailles was to Weimar. And if you don't know, Weimar decided to default rather than pay thier reparations. Hyperinflation ensued.

Jack London| 11.9.11 @ 5:24PM

No - the Obamacare related increase is much smaller – 1-2% or so a year. Reading people like you an alien from Mars would never know that premiums _doubled_ under your intellectual colossus, GW Bush.

George S| 11.9.11 @ 6:10PM

Jack, Jack, Jack... ObamaCare was supposed to reduce our premiums $2500 per year.

Ten years from now, when the SEIU is agitating for the Middle Class via collective bargaining against the health care dollar fueled by the mandate, you still think it is only going to take a one or two percent increase?

JP| 11.9.11 @ 7:06PM

Jack,
Read my post again. The premium increases have occured since ObamaCare was signed into law. Good grief, this report came out last week on the AP wire. Where I work, healthcare premiums have gone up 15%, co-pays 30% in the last 18 months. The data was provided by the health care giants like Blue Cross and United.

Obama promised that premiums would drop.

TrueBlue| 11.9.11 @ 7:17PM

The issue with "Wall Street" is the Federal Government interfering and picking winners and losers in what SHOULD be a capitalist society. They should never have been able to choose what companies were "too big to fail," let alone give those companies federal funds. Government subsidies should be thrown in the trash.

Purpleguy| 11.9.11 @ 7:21PM

Yes, it would .. Medicare costs 4% overhead, while private insuring profit makers have 20-30% overhead ... you figure out which would be cheaper, genius.

JP| 11.9.11 @ 7:28PM

Medicare doesn't have to turn a profit and simply refuse to negociate with doctors, you blockhead. Medicare simply transfers incomes from the working to the retirees. And by 2014 Medicare will cost the taxpayers almost $1 trillion.

BTW, about 80% of private insurance overhead is the result of thousands of pages of federal laws.

Purpleguy| 11.10.11 @ 2:29PM

You're right about Medicare not having to turn a profit. Neither does road building or the Armed Forces, but they are done well.
80% - Where in the world did you get that little gem?
You tell me what healthcare rules you want to do without - Privacy laws? Or let's spread your medical records around. How about Narcotics regs - or should we ignore abuse of narcotics by doctors, etc. How about Hospital Certifications - or would you prefer to be treated in an un-certified hospital. For every regulation you don't like, there's a good reason to have it. Making blanket statements about 80% without any proof is foolish.

skip| 11.10.11 @ 6:55PM

Why is health insurance any different to purchase than auto insurance.

Why is health insurance any different to purchase than home insurance.

Why is health insurance any different to purchase than life insurance.

All your comments so far consist of nothing more than emotional prattle wholly lacking in reason and experience and wholly lacking in anything remotely based on intelligence and honesty, as any semi-sentient being knows.

Idiot.

Timely Renewed | 11.9.11 @ 12:50PM

Interesting article, although it needs to be updated to include yesterday's DC Circuit decision which will also be quickly appealed to SCOTUS. Judge Silberman's decision there shows how all arguments against Obamacare labor under the overweening burden of 70 year old Supreme Court interpretations of the interstate commerce clause like Wickard which expanded the reach of federal power far beyond any original understanding of the scope of that clause. Until this fundamental distortion of the Constitution is addressed, leftists will always find other ways to expand federal power over healthcare and every other aspect of our national life even if one aspect of Obamacare (the individual mandate) is ultimately overturned in the Supreme Court.

How do we restore those original meanings today after the original text has been so distorted and abused by the Supreme Court? Even supposedly "conservative" Congresses and Supreme Courts have failed to do much to roll back the vast unconstitutional expansion of the national government. We can not rely on politicians or judges to do it voluntarily. Rather, we need to amend the Constitution to restate those original meanings. By overturning all those decades of abuse by the Supreme Court, and putting clearly stated limits on Congress and the President which reflect the original constitutional allocation of powers in language which can not be misconstrued, will assure not only the end of Obamacare, but every other federal overreach. See www.timelyrenewed.com.

Mike 3/505| 11.9.11 @ 5:34PM

The only way to deal with this is to elect a continued series of conservative presidents, who then appoint conservative justices at all levels.

Absent the above...then disobedience...in your face disobedience untilnthentakers finally understand they have to become makers.

Regards,

Mike

WM| 11.10.11 @ 1:50AM

I agree that it will ultimately take amending the Constitution to clear out all this statist junk. Ayn Rand advocated an Amendment stating, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade."

Purpleguy| 11.9.11 @ 6:38PM

Why is there nothing on this site about all the GOP losses yesterday? Sore losers, Sour grapes, hmmmm? :-)

JP| 11.9.11 @ 7:30PM

Don't read much about it anywhere else, outside of the leftists blogsphere. The Ohio loss only keeps the status quo. Like I posted above, the voters of Ohio just sent job creators a clear message: Get Lost!!

Purpleguy| 11.10.11 @ 2:31PM

No, read it as the middle class stood up to the Koch Bros and their minions... the fact you don't support the union movement means you are with the 1% crowd, of which you will never be one. Enjoy being the human a the vampire party. You will until it's too late ... "they will not see"

Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.9.11 @ 6:56PM

Dump it all!!! That's where it belongs..........in the trash heap.

Purpleguy| 11.9.11 @ 7:22PM

Spectator?

Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.9.11 @ 7:27PM

Obama care

POST American| 11.9.11 @ 11:10PM

-------------------BOTTOM LINE-----------------------

AS those LIVE cancer viruses in the
Salk POLIO vaccines kick in among your
loved ones ------CON-sider what's REALLY
unhealthy about America.

Purpleguy| 11.10.11 @ 2:32PM

Huh? the Polio vaccine has save countless lives and crippling of children. WTF are you talking about?

WM| 11.10.11 @ 1:48AM

Judge Silberman's ruling:

9th AND 10th AMENDMENT FAIL

EPISTEMIC FAIL

His logic was that in all its rulings, the SCOTUS only ever restricted regulations on "activity," not inactivity, and these cases did not address inactivity. Therefore, there is no precedent by which to restrict the government's power to regulate inactivity.

Commerce refers to activity. If something is inactivity, it is not commerce. In fact, it does not exist at all. Activity is the fundamental nature of commerce, which is why all the cases have dealt with activity. Inactivity means the opposite of activity. There is no historical, legal, philosophical, or even layman sense in which inactivity is equivalent to activity. His ruling is simply unjustifiable and monstrous.

Silberman's ruling would be like defending a hypothetical law that forces people to pay off 10% of all loans/personal debt every year on the grounds that Congress has Constitutional authority to establish uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies, and debt drives bankruptcies. When you point out that this law has nothing to do with bankruptcy, the Judge says, well, it's true, and all past cases on this Constitutional provision have dealt only with bankruptcies, but none of these cases deal with cases of non-bankruptcy, so there is no basis to restrict the government from passing laws to compel people even in cases where they are not going bankrupt.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would suspect that Silberman is an establishment Republican trying to create the impression that the SCOTUS may not kill Obamacare, so we peons had better make sure that the so-called "most electable" Republican is nominated.

Purpleguy| 11.10.11 @ 2:34PM

Wow - tortured logic in full display.

WM| 11.10.11 @ 4:45PM

Yet you strangely can't seem to find any errors in it.

KPOM| 11.11.11 @ 11:06AM

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm guessing that Silberman is yet another judge who has gradually fallen victim to the inside-the-Beltway view that all power emanates from the federal government. Most liberals come to Washington with that view. Some conservatives do, and some other conservatives who come to Washington without that view eventually succumb to it.

If this stands, liberals will eventual rue the day they resorted to mandates, as it means that future conservative administrations and Congresses will impose mandates that liberals don't like (e.g. forced private retirement funding).

KPOM| 11.11.11 @ 11:11AM

The danger with the Silberman ruling is that it gives a potential "out" for Kennedy and/or Roberts to vote with the majority. Before the DC court ruling, I thought that SCOTUS would strike down the mandate but not sever it (leaving us with an unworkable mess the way the 11th Circuit ruling did). Now I'm thinking it will go 5-4 or 6/3 to uphold the law, with Kennedy and/or Roberts trying to write the opinion as narrowly as possible. If it is 5-3 in support of the ACA when Roberts comes to vote, my guess is he'll vote with the majority so he can write the opinion (or at least edit it). If it is 4-4, my guess is Roberts will vote to strike down the law.

wedding dresses | 11.14.11 @ 3:15AM

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|54 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|46 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|30 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|71 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|10 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|18 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|21 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

James Gandolfini, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 6.19.13

An Alternate History of the Syrian Civil War

John Tabin | 6.19.13

Peter Wehner Responds

Jeffrey Lord | 6.19.13

CBO Gives Ammunition to Immigration Reform Supporters

Jordan Gonzalez | 6.19.13

Obama Addresses Nuclear Reduction, Climate Change

Claire Healey | 6.19.13

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 6.19.13

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 6.19.13

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6.19.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?