-
Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?
May 20, 2013 | 6 comments
-
The Grand Old Poseurs
May 13, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Obamacare Pimps Smear Lipstick on Another Pig
May 6, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?
April 29, 2013 | 88 comments
-
GOP at Fault for Obamacare Train Wreck?
April 22, 2013 | 106 comments
The Right Prescription
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear ‘Frivolous’ Obamacare Case
The justices will hear arguments on four distinct constitutional issues.
When the passage of Obamacare spawned dozens of legal challenges to the law’s constitutionality, the Democrats and their accomplices in the “news” media dismissed these lawsuits as frivolous publicity stunts. Some actual courts, however, took a different view. One district court ruled the law’s individual mandate unconstitutional and another struck down the entire statute. When the DOJ appealed these decisions, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the mandate but the Eleventh Circuit struck it down. The latter ruling was unsatisfactory to both parties, who filed appeals with the Supreme Court just as that august body was being inundated with a spate of petitions involving a variety of other Obamacare cases. Yesterday, therefore, the Court agreed to hear arguments concerning several issues raised by these lawsuits.
Few informed observers were surprised that the Supremes decided to take up Obamacare. The Court’s order did, however, contain a couple of features that not even the most sophisticated constitutional scholars expected. Of these, the most surprising was the amount of time the Court allotted for oral arguments. No fewer than five-and-a-half hours have been set aside for that purpose. According to Lyle Denniston, who has been reporting on the Supreme Court for decades, “The allotment of 5 1/2 hours for oral argument appeared to be a modern record; the most recent lengthy hearing came in a major constitutional dispute over campaign finance law in 2003, but that was only for 4 hours.” The Court will allow two days for oral arguments, although the actual dates haven’t been set, and there will be four questions at issue.
The most predictable of these questions will involve whether Congress possesses the power to enact the individual mandate, and it will be allotted two hours. This is the issue that has been raised in virtually every challenge to Obamacare. The government maintains that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to order all Americans to buy health insurance. The plaintiffs in Florida v. HHS and numerous other challenges to the “reform” law assert that even the broadest interpretation of that clause does not permit Congress to regulate “inactivity.” In other words, it may allow the government to prevent a citizen from engaging in an “activity” like growing medicinal marijuana, but it cannot possibly authorize Congress to regulate something a citizen is not doing — like failing to buy insurance.
A closely related issue that has been allotted 90 minutes of oral argument concerns whether the individual mandate is severable from the rest of the law. In their headlong rush to ram “reform” down America’s throat, congressional Democrats and their accomplices at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue neglected to include a severability clause in Obamacare. The object of such language is to ensure that, if some part of a law is declared invalid in court, the remaining provisions stay in force. For reasons highlighted by Obamacare and its mandate, severability clauses are routinely inserted in most important pieces of legislation. It was the absence of severability language that led U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to strike down the whole of Obamacare when he found that the mandate was unconstitutional.
A third question to which the justices have allotted one hour involves the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), and whether it bars any challenge to the individual mandate before it takes effect. The government’s argument on this issue ought to be fascinating. When the legal challenges to Obamacare started to materialize, the government’s lawyers attempted to argue that the mandate and its penalty were, in effect, a tax. But they couldn’t sell it, partially because of denials by the President and a conspicuous effort by Congress to avoid the “T” word while writing the actual legislation. Eventually, the Obama administration conceded that “the Anti-Injunction Act is not applicable” to the mandate question. Nonetheless, the DOJ executed another flip-flop and reintroduced the AIA question in its petition to the Court.
The final issue the Court wants to hear about, and to which it has allotted an hour of oral argument, is the other feature of the Court’s order that raised a few scholarly eyebrows. It concerns Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid and if it amounts to a “commandeering” of the states. The issue is raised in Florida v. HHS, whose plaintiffs maintain that the fiscal pressure associated with that expansion is so coercive as to be unconstitutional. This claim, however, has failed to get any traction in the courts. As legal scholar Bradley Joondeph puts it, “There is no split on the question, and no lower court judge has yet voted to uphold the states’ claim.” Presumably, however, the Court recognizes that the federal government attaches so many strings to its portion of Medicaid funding that it can effectively control how states budget their funds.
The “commandeering” claim, like the other three arcane issues the justices want addressed, will probably be argued before the Court during the last week of March. During the interim, there will no doubt be a good deal of bandwidth wasted in the “news” media and in the blogosphere on a variety of sideshows. There will, for example, be ridiculous demands from the left for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself because his wife has spoken out against Obamacare. There will also be much more substantive demands from conservatives for Justice Kagan to recuse herself pursuant to her role in preparing the legal strategy for defending the “reform” law in court. In the end, however, it’s doubtful that either Thomas or Kagan will decline to participate in such an important case. Such momentous cases are, after all, what these people live for.
The final decision, by all accounts, will be handed down sometime in June. And, regardless of whether ObamaCare is struck down in part or in its entirety, it will definitely have an effect on the election and the Court will once again be accused of playing politics. Both parties will attempt to use the outcome to their advantage. The only safe prediction that one can make about the ruling or its political effect is that no one will describe either as “frivolous.”
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 (85) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/15/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-f
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Hannah and Her Friends
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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
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
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Augusta| 11.15.11 @ 6:44AM
[1] There is zero cause for Justice Thomas to recuse himself - the lib hysterics are desperate. However, Kagan worked on this legislation, and the GOP should insist she recuse herself. Being the cowards they are, they will likely do nothing; [2] It doesn't matter if it's all deemed constitutionally hunky-dory. We can still repeal it. Any law can. And the majority of American People are overwhelmingly against this monstrosity; [3] Obamacare, the quintessence of socialism, will put the final nail in the economy's coffin - it simply cannot be sustained and is destined to fail horrifically even if it is only partially implemented.
jbt| 11.15.11 @ 10:31AM
I contend that Kagan was purposely left out of any discussions or strategy sessions as she was destined to be on the court.
Brubaker| 11.15.11 @ 11:03AM
Contend away Sherlock.
Dick Nome| 11.15.11 @ 11:51AM
Clown lives in a vacuum. She was intimately involved.
Purpleguy| 11.15.11 @ 9:42PM
And you know this, how exactly?
tonypal| 11.15.11 @ 11:10PM
There is now a considerable body of evidence pointing to Kagan strategizing with regard to the health care law. Not in term of the substance, but the legal defense. It's all there to see, if you're actually interested.
Bydand76| 11.15.11 @ 11:46PM
Her own emails perhaps...?
Maybe she was crossing her fingers and her toes hoping the law would be passed?
Speedypete| 11.17.11 @ 7:22PM
“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails. What is next, are you going to respond with, define "have" or "amazing. Or are you just simply defined by your comments above?
Redstateboy| 11.15.11 @ 11:21AM
well put Augusta... Ask a Liber-ul (if you can find a half-informed one) who's going to Pay for HusseinCare?!!? and all you'll get is the Deer in the Headlights stare - then of course they'll call you an uncaring, greedy sob and walk away.
Teaghan| 11.15.11 @ 12:50PM
"Don't you wanna help people?"
Purpleguy| 11.15.11 @ 9:43PM
You are, of course. Pay up and shut up.
Alan Brooks| 11.15.11 @ 5:56PM
Why don't you all just admit it:
'small' govt ended 9-11-'01
Stop the SHIT.
With God all things r possible| 11.15.11 @ 10:30PM
Your profanity demonstrates your intellect so convincingly!
TrueBlue| 11.16.11 @ 12:11PM
Started warming up with Bush Sr, Clinton kicked it in gear, Bush Jr. put in 4th, and Obama turned on the NOS.
Occam's Tool| 11.16.11 @ 1:25AM
I believe, Augusta, that Kagan will not recuse herself. For example: Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan did not recuse herself from Monday's decision not to fast-track the high court's review of Virginia's challenge to the healthcare reform law, prompting speculation that President Obama's former solicitor general intends to take part in the case if and when it reaches her level.
"If Kagan didn't recuse herself from this decision, it would hint that she won't recuse herself from any ObamaCare deliberations despite ... the possibility that she gave the administration legal advice on crafting and defending the law," the conservative website Hot Air opined."
Besides this, with the exception of RCV and vtwin, (both of whom I like DESPITE the liberal views they occasionally espouse) my opinion on Liberals closely resembles Westbrook Pegler's on Eleanor Roosevelt (howzzat for an arcane reference for a guy born in 1962, huh guys?).
Gary B| 11.15.11 @ 7:16AM
This is one huge case.
It has several make-or-break implications for America itself. (1) The individual mandate can kill America as we know it. (2) The severability issue in all private contracts is now up for grabs. (3) Along with the mandate, the commandeering issue can kill what remains of states' rights.
And, last but not least, criteria for recusal seems headed out the window. If Kagan fails to recuse herself, then the Court itself will be less relevant as a judicial body and become, like everything else in DC, a crass gang of political thugs. These justices need to take a long, hard look in the mirror before rendering their opinions.
With Obamacare headed for a Supreme Court showdown, this administration has managed to place the future of DC elitism on trial. This a major us-or-them case and I'm not so sure this Court is up to it.
What I am very pleased about is that the Court has decided to hear and decide the case prior to the election. That surprised me.
russel| 11.15.11 @ 9:05AM
I want to see the 'premes take on the commerce clause and spell out what they think it is . That damn little spot of grease , originally intended to stop states from squeaking , has grown and grown and now has the power to cure anything .
Purpleguy| 11.15.11 @ 9:44PM
and has given you the advanced civilization you live in, and not the agrarian society under which the Constitution was written. But Im sure you'd be happy to go back to the horse and buggy, right?
tonypal| 11.15.11 @ 11:11PM
Purpleguy, a simple question. Why are you so eager to cede your personal liberties. Does it occur to you that we can achieve health coverage for one and all without the federal leviathin getting involved?
topeka| 11.21.11 @ 12:06PM
Amazing...
How exactly is the General Welfare clause (included as an aspirational statement to preclude legislation for special interests) responsible for the industrial revolution?
Name one expression of the welfare state which is not opposed to progress?
...
martin j smith| 11.15.11 @ 7:28AM
I think every member of the court knows exactly what decision they will make right now. This process is more theater and nothing more. The only question is that there is most likely one justice whose decision we do not yet know--but he knows. And the chances are very high no evidence will make a difference one way or the other.
There are most likely three possible outcomes. The factors that will influence them are a) the political bent of the justices and in particular their support for Socialism. b) The fact that Obama Care is against the will of the vast majority of Americans( which does not matter in the case of at least 4 justices ) c) the impact of the decision on the nation.
If the decision is a clear cut repudiation of the Obama Care Law or one that upholds it this nation will be in turmoil for years to come politically speaking and the SCOTUS will be seen as the "enemy of the people". If per chance their is a decision that is indecisive this nation will be in turmoil and SCOTUS will be seen as the enemy of the people. The best decision would be the one that says that for the good of the nation the States need to may their own decision about health care.
Most likely that will not happen.
Gary B| 11.15.11 @ 8:23AM
Mr. Smith,
Unfortunately, you're correct about the court's terrible habit of rendering partial decisions. As I've mentioned previously here, their stock in trade is letting the nation twist in the wind.
Every other court in the land decides things. For reasons beyond my understanding, this court does not. It's more of a debating society.
Here's the risk. If this so-called court refuses to do the right thing, we citizens will have to decide for it, using elections or other tools at our disposal.
Teaghan| 11.15.11 @ 12:53PM
Kind of like voting "present"?
Gary B| 11.15.11 @ 3:06PM
Teaghan,
Exactly like voting "present." Well put.
Bsg| 11.17.11 @ 6:21PM
Agreed, its just a show, they all know how they are going to vote, they just need the time to write up a cleaver reasoning so they can add another chapter to the Harvard Law Review.
Purpleguy| 11.15.11 @ 9:49PM
None of your supposed outcomes is based on Constitutional Law nor the Constitution. Justices are to exercise free will and sound judgement, separate from the elected branches of government, and Against the will of the people in what, polls? is irrelevant to a Court anyway, per the Federalist Papers, and the impact on the nation is irrelevant to the law. Especially the conservative Justices should be guided by prior law and legal precedence and can do no more or less than uphold Obamacare. Your final statement is what will occur.
tonypal| 11.15.11 @ 11:16PM
Really. Cite a specific case that supports the proposition that Congress can compel individual citizens to purchase goods and services. Don't even bother bringing up social security and tax law. The Supreme Court has spoken on this matter several times and have made a clear distinction between taxes and fines/penalties. If you truly value precedence, you cannot possibly believe the correct decision is to uphold the individual mandate. Incidentally, should the Supreme Court have upheld the Dred Scott decision? After all, that was precedent and a pretty old one at that.
Timothy L. Pennell| 11.15.11 @ 7:35AM
I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why this "Law" isn't also being fought on a 14th Amendment ground? On an Equal Protection ground. Let me explain.
If this is for Everyone (and if the Laws of the Land are supposed to be for Everyone) then how can there be so many with an EXEMPTION?
How does McDonalds get an exemption? Are you telling me that one of the most Profitable, Multi-Billion Dollar Corporations in the world, CAN'T AFFORD IT? What about GE? GE can't afford it? GM? CHRYSLER? What about the UNIONS. They were on the Front Lines, for their Boy - Obama. They Marched, and they carried signs, and they were loud, in FAVOUR of this Law. Now, they don't want it? And, because they give MILLION$ to the Democrats, they don't have to COMPLY?
There have been THOUSANDS of Exemptions given to OBAMA Supporters, and Contributors. All of them, Millionaires and Billionaires. This Law is for The Masses. For the Peasants. It is not for the Friends of the KING.
Money Talks. You got money, you pick up the phone. You call the Criminal Enterprise, in the White House. They'll put you in touch with the woman who CRIED, when she learned of the death of her friend - (Dr.) Tiller. Tiller the Killer. A Man who SLAUGHTERED little FULL TERM BABIES, pulling them out by their feet, until just their tiny heads remained inside their Mother's wombs, before Slitting the base of their skulls open, and Sucking out their Brains. You talk to her. She'll set you up. Just remember who Cut you a DEAL, come 2012. CASH. No Checks. No Paper Trail.
As far as KAGAN goes? Democrats don't recuse themselves. They just LIE, and nobody will call them on it. We have a 5th Column in this Country, that is The Media. If this was a 2nd Amendment Case, and Kagan was a Republican with all of the Conflicts of Interests that she has with Health Care? The Leahys and the Schumers and the Markeys and that walrus looking PUKE, in California with the NOSTRILS (Waxman) would be all over the Alphabet Networks, DEMANDING that she kill herself. Every Sunday Liberal would be grilling any Republican, stupid enough to go on their shows, about the NEED for her to recuse herself. And LARRY TRIBE would be leading the pack.
And, everybody knows it.
The Institution that is SUPPOSED to be a Watchdog over government, has become a Lapdog for One Political Party, and a Guard Dog for the Worst President this Country has ever had.
How's that working out? Are we better off, now? Or, WORSE?
George S| 11.15.11 @ 10:43AM
The 14th is not our friend on this one. Would you want SCOTUS to rule: shame on you Obama -- now apply the law to everybody?
Kagan is a mole, intentionally planted along with the Wise One, to make sure at least 22% of the Supreme Court is loyal to Obama's legacy.
Purpleguy| 11.15.11 @ 9:50PM
Oh, um, and Roberts and Alito are true to whom? Bill Clinton? I think not ... and so it goes ... win some, lose some.
Clint| 11.15.11 @ 8:02AM
" Stuart Varney: I know you oppose this deal, this healthcare reform bill. We’re assuming that it is going to pass, by all the vote count looks like it is there. Could you tell us what is your biggest single objection to this healthcare bill?
Ron Paul: Well, there’s too many. It is just wrong policy, it’s bad economic policy, it’s bad moral policy, it’s bad constitutional law. But the process is just outrageous. I mean we’re voting on a rule and we’re gonna pass a bill and then the bill will be doctored up a little bit after it. But this idea of an executive order amending the bill, just is such an outrage.
I mean, the process on the floor is such an outrage; at least they are talking about the outrage. But to think that we’ve gotten to the point where we allow our President just to write an executive order, it’s the law of the land. There’s nothing conceivable about that being constitutional."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Purpleguy| 11.15.11 @ 9:52PM
too bad you missed Dubya's term, who passed more law by Executive fiat than anyone before or since. Tea Baggers are too late., the power has been granted.
tonypal| 11.15.11 @ 11:17PM
Again, cite us evidence Purpleguy. All of your posts are long on assertion and utterly devoid of fact. Give us the facts to support your latest assertion.
Pecos Pete| 11.15.11 @ 8:20AM
The decision of SCOTUS will be announced in June 2012. That will be a good month to be somewhere safe. As pointed out above by Martin J Smith, there will be a significantly disappointed portion of the public.
If SCOTUS determines that ObamaCare is constitutional, conservative voters will be marching (running!) toward November 2012 elections with the full intention of electing conservatives to Congress who will repeal ObamaCare.
On the other hand, if ObamaCare is ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, the Marxists will erupt with OWS/Union demonstrations/riots that will disrupt the nominating conventions of both the democrats and the Republicans. King O will provide his best community organizing oratory during the democrat convention further stoking the fires of Marxist hatreds.
The election in November 2012 will be decisive in terms of a peaceful public. If King O wins, class warfare continues with the backdrop of the SCOTUS decision in June regardless of the decision. If a Republican wins, and wonder of wonders both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans, the MSM and the Marxists will erupt and once again the SCOTUS decision in June 2012 will be the backdrop.
The final six-months of 2012 ain't going to be pretty.
DaveD| 11.15.11 @ 10:11AM
Like you, I can see a return to the 60's race riots, only this time they'll be entitlement riots. And, unfortunately, I can see even a solid Republican Congress and Republican President caving in to the pressure.
The future is not rosy.
Gary B| 11.15.11 @ 3:15PM
Republicans (not conservatives) cave. It's what they do. Their job is to be fake opposition to the statists... to make it look like a two-party system.
We all know this, but any outsider (Goldwater, Reagan, Paul, Bachmann, Cain, Palin, etc.) is deemed an enemy of the state and attached from all sides. As Rush has said, anyone they hate is good for us.
The Democrat machine, which includes the press, makes a frontal attack; they hit 'em high. The establishment Republicans are inside saboteurs; they hit 'em low. It's an old game. The Internet has helped expose it.
Purpleguy| 11.15.11 @ 9:53PM
You mean the "will of the people" should not rule the day? Only when you agree with the people?
buckeyeman| 11.15.11 @ 10:39PM
The will of the German people was to exterminate the Jews. OK with you, since it was "democracy"?
topeka| 11.21.11 @ 12:41PM
... not quite true... Germans were hard to find for the actual extermination. The Lefties in Berlin had a hard time finding child killers even amongst the SS. They had to go to the mental hospitals to find enough murderers.
Remember the national socialists only had about 3% support when they came to power in a semi parliamentary system of power sharing. Germans suddenly discovered they were supporters when they realized dissent meant prison.
VonMisesJr| 11.15.11 @ 9:07AM
In Honduras, at least the legislature and the courts had the temerity to order the military to expel the want-a-be dictator Mr. Zelaya from office. They threw him out on the border in his pajamas before he had his coffee the next morning.
Our legislature are painty-waists. Or perhaps they are sellouts to our nation and Constitution. So perhaps good and proud Americans need to throw them out also?
Mexico may not welcome our miscreants with open arms as we welcome theirs, but perhaps we should insist. Obama and the congress will be right at home with drug gangs and anarchy, provided they get cut in on the action.
richard ryan| 11.15.11 @ 9:15AM
EMTALA laws state that hospitals and doctors cannot deny care to any patient, and are subject to penalties and prosecution if they fail to do so. There is no such thing as lack of medical care in this country. Check out your local ER. It's filled with non-citizens soaking up our health care dollars. This prompted all the cries from the left about the uninsured filling our emergency rooms. Then comes the mandate. It's a great example of how one bad law (EMTALA) leads to another (Obamacare).
Anthony| 11.15.11 @ 9:42AM
Our Constitutional republic is being held together by a thread, and our Supreme Court is, unfortunately, as politically corrupt as the rest of the Leftist government in charge.
The case for Kagan's recusal is so legally and intellectually obvious, that her silence is just another dangerous sign that Kagan and the Left have abandoned all principle. The end justifies the means.
One would hope the 9 justices would understand what dangerous times we live in, and how a unanimous decision would go a long way in easing the tensions in this country. Unfortunately, they are as politically and intellectually divided as the rest of the country.
I fear their split decision, just a few months before the election, will ignite the entire powerkeg.
Gary B| 11.15.11 @ 3:17PM
Anthony,
This powder keg may need igniting. We can't go on as we have been. There is NO MORE MONEY.
Anthony| 11.15.11 @ 3:30PM
Sadly, I agree.
Purpleguy| 11.15.11 @ 9:54PM
Oh, and the support of a political party by a sitting Justice Clarence "Coke Can" Thomas gets a pass? Sorry bubba, but what's good for the right is good for the left. You do it, you will get it back at ya.
Deborah D | 11.16.11 @ 4:41AM
So...you actually think that because a justice's WIFE has an opinion (that you don't agree with) that he should recuse himself. I call BS -- just another ridiculous leftist talking point. How does that compare to Kagan's actually working on Obamacare before she became justice? It doesn't. And the Coke can crap was a real sleazy touch, SEIU guy.
Indy| 11.15.11 @ 9:46AM
We are all stakeholders in this ruling, Mark Levin's legal foundation has been working on the case, readers here may want to consider making a donation to this effort, I am listening to his podcast from yesterday, for me he is the go to guy on legal matters
http://www.marklevinshow.com/g.....fault.aspx
Indy| 11.15.11 @ 10:15AM
If you the above link does not work, try this one, I just made a donation
http://www.landmarklegal.org/D.....px?tabid=7
Dave | 11.15.11 @ 10:03AM
After reading David's column and scrolling through the posted comments (so far, pretty well written) I decided against writing a longer one of my own. In the end, the column and posted comments have the subject covered nicely.
I'll just leave with this ...
Right now the national finger nails ought to start becoming shorter while the Xanax prescriptions grow a little stronger. At the end of the secession, should Obamacare with all its intrusive baggage be ruled Constitutional by a majority of the Supremes, the Marxist/Occupiers will have won, while the rest will be left muttering: "Shut-up and deal."
This morning, the only thing that came to mind is the image of a future road sign that'll be posted just inside the borders of what used to be Mrs. Butterworth's America. I see it as one of those basic, government highway signs with the green background, and bilingual lettering in reflector plastic that reads:
WELCOME TO NEW GREECEBURGH-WEST
- The Welfare State -
Elevation: Sinking
Population: Pis-ed Off and Broke
State Flower: Cannabis
"HAVE A GROOVY DAY."
Chris Pedersen| 11.15.11 @ 10:08AM
It's simple! Just say NO, with 79% of those opposing it, refusing ANY Compliance by Boycotting the [Internal [R]acketeering [S]ervice of the United States Of La Cosa Nostra, in April. 79% of 305 million Americans should send a loud and clear message to All the Racketeering Cohorts in Wahington including the DOJs' prosecutoral arm. Even halve or less of that percentage would throw the "cooked" books of the feds off moreso than printing more money.
When are the American People going to grow a pair including somesome steel-wool hair on their A$$ES instead of shaving their legs with the Cream Puff Conservative razor As a former brained washed lib from Chicago.[Rehabed in SW Missouri by talk radio Hosts Boortz,Hannity, Levin] it is frustrating to back people who would quake in their boots of the "Boycott" idea as Politically incorrect, when the "Federal Mafia" is OUR largest threat againt Economic Liberty ever.
Consevatives are Sissys when it comes to their survival, afraid to fight, or join in with this idea while screaming about "Defense" Spending" while squinting from two black eyes and speaking with bloodie lips displaying their Chicken-Sh*t band-aids, although they are correct on most everything they advocate for.
I believe in "Turning The Other Cheek" only after breaking the other guys jaw, and in particular when the threat of this Country's survival in on the line! Beyond that, It's "Bada Bing" time folks!
Time to throw the Daisy pickers away and strip serach all who are running for that illusionary Pair of non-existent Balls to the Wall rather than their "double speak" of no substance.
Purpleguy| 11.15.11 @ 9:56PM
Actually, 1/2 of that 79% don't like the law because it doesn't go FAR enough.. but no one on Fixed News will tell you that .. would disturb your carefully cultivated right wing echo chamber...
George S| 11.15.11 @ 10:26AM
Why is the Court asking for so much time? This, IMO, is not good. It tells me that the Justices want to be extra careful about being too quick to deny Congress yet another usurpation of power.
jbt| 11.15.11 @ 10:38AM
One would think that 5 and 1/2 hours of argument is reasonable for the most important legal issue in a generation.
Purpleguy| 11.15.11 @ 9:57PM
Congress has the authority under the Constitution and argued in the Federalist Papers if you want fundamental rationale for this law.
Brubaker| 11.15.11 @ 11:08AM
"...the Democrats and their accomplices in the "news" media dismissed these lawsuits as frivolous publicity stunts."
Today's New York Times continues to whistle past the graveyard, arguing in essence that the case is already decided and Obamacare clearly is constitutional. "Nothing to see here folks. Move along."
Gary B| 11.15.11 @ 3:22PM
Well, the New York Times is clearly a propaganda machine. They would say something like that. Rubbing America's nose in Obama's BS is their job.
rcyanc| 11.15.11 @ 11:14AM
Well... the is an existential issue for the supremes. If they rule to uphold, they might as well take off their robes, fold them up neatly and then burn the court as they leave. There will be no limit on congressional powers and therefore they will have no discernable role going forward. Sure, a lawsuit here or there, but congress will simply overrule the court where they like.
nohussein| 11.15.11 @ 11:33AM
it's going down, just like the hussein.
Purpleguy| 11.15.11 @ 9:57PM
Hold that thought, and your breath, til it happens.. no way Jose.
Mimi| 11.15.11 @ 11:42AM
I for one.....Will PRAY ! If we truly ageee that PROVIDENCE has a hand on this nation, that he has provided the circumstances from the days of Trenton...we will come out of this with our LIBERTY in tact....we PRAY that GOD will bless America and throw this harmful legislation out!!!
sirbourbon| 11.15.11 @ 12:21PM
SC justice Kagan needs to set this one aside.
Kagan lied about her support for Obamacare to the Senate duuring the confirmation hearings as per this article>>>http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/9767-emails-suggest-kagan-mislead-senate-about-obamacare
She should be impeached and removed from the court.
Here is part of the linked article:
"... When Elena Kagan was Solicitor General of the United States, she and Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe had e-mail exchanges, which were obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act, that suggest that she could not be impartial in ruling on Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because she has taken a position for the bill.
Tribe is a 'liberal' professor who has written in the New York Times in defense of ObamaCare, has argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court, and was working for the Obama administration's Department of Justice at the time of the e-mail exchange. The Media Research Council and Judicial Watch filed the Freedom of Information Act request on May 25, 2010, which was before Kagan’s Senate confirmation hearings for a position on the Supreme Court. That e-mail correspondence makes it clear that then-Solicitor General Kagan and Tribe had contacted each other about ObamaCare as early as March 21, 2010 and that Kagan likely has been a cheerleader for ObamaCare. The e-mails' title refers to the upcoming vote on ObamaCare and says, 'Fingers and toes crossed today.' In the e-mails Kagan says about the probable passage of ObamaCare: 'I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.'"
Bill| 11.15.11 @ 1:10PM
Please repeal ObamaCare.
Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.15.11 @ 2:27PM
It's a monstrosity that I cannot afford to pay for, and will not pay for.
Kagan definately should recuse herself...but she won't because that is the arrogance that she and all socialists practice as their right, since they are at a such higher level of intelligentce and position than we poor worker bees, who are supposed to labor at their pleasure.
The whole monstrosity should be piled up and burned on the White House lawn.
Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.15.11 @ 2:28PM
P. S. She doesn't belong on the Supreme Court anyway................
Purpleguy| 11.15.11 @ 9:58PM
not for you to say Chuckie... you have no power here.
Gary B| 11.15.11 @ 3:25PM
The first thing liberals do upon entering office is take their oath of office. It's their first lie.
NeilBJ| 11.15.11 @ 3:53PM
The following is the concluding statement from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruling on the challenge to Obamacare, November 8, 2011. (USCA Case #11-5047)
"That a direct requirement for most Americans to purchase any product or service seems an intrusive exercise of legislative power surely explains why Congress has not used this authority
before–but that seems to us a political judgment rather than a recognition of constitutional limitations. It certainly is an encroachment on individual liberty, but it is no more so than a
command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race, that gravely ill individuals cannot use a substance their doctors described as the only effective
palliative for excruciating pain, or that a farmer cannot grow enough wheat to support his own family. The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the
imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local–or seemingly passive–their individual origins. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the district court."
I bristled when I read this paragraph. The court recognized that the individual mandate is an
encroachment on indivdual liberties. And how do they justify this conclusion? Why it is no more an encroachment on indvidual liberties than any of these other court decisions. If those decisions encroached on invidual liberties, then obviously a precendent has been established for the government to encroach on invidual liberties any time it pleases.
I always thought that the Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution to protect our individual liberties from the encroachment by the government. Why don't judges understand this fundamental and indeed most important reason for the existence of the Constitution?
I truly don't understand how their mind functions.
Gary B| 11.15.11 @ 5:31PM
As cynical as this sounds, you don't get invited to DC cocktail parties unless you're a liberal. If you do something outrageously anti-American, you get high fives as you enter the party. Turn American society upside down and you're a hero for a full week.
Purpleguy| 11.15.11 @ 10:00PM
No, they sought to protect us from tyrannical government, not responsible to the people. And, so they have done that. What the people and their representatives do you may not like, but it is not a tyrannical regime when duly elected by the people, now is it?
DaveD| 11.15.11 @ 10:24PM
Oh Lord, help me. The Soviets used to hold elections so obviously the U.S.S.R., by your illogic, was not a tyranny.
Solo| 11.17.11 @ 10:12AM
No. "Purpleguy". They sought to protect us from tyrannical government by limiting the power of government to interfere in our lives, regardless of what "the masses" want.
Not to put too fine a point on it but, the founders established a Constitutional Republic--not a "Mob-ocracy".
It's true, believe it or not. Check it out.
Should Have Impeached| 11.15.11 @ 11:22PM
"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the
imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems,...."
Let's see.... The right to be free from federal regulation... YIELDS(!) to the IMPERATIVE THAT CONGRESS BE FREE (!).... to forge national solutions....
Now since when is the Constitution about granting or expanding the FREEDOM of Congress... to do anything against the freedom of the people WITHOUT ANY EXPRESSED LIMITS?!!
Absolutely bone chilling language in here.
shannon | 11.15.11 @ 3:57PM
Only God can help America if the Supreme Court allows Obamacare to stay in play. www.takingonissues.com
Purpleguy| 11.15.11 @ 10:00PM
How stupid ....
Deborah D | 11.16.11 @ 4:57AM
And you should know stupid...
daoliver| 11.15.11 @ 4:28PM
The other day I was thinking of an approach that hasn't come up yet. Since Roe v Wade was decided based upon a woman's right to privacy in her body and here healthcare, what makes this different. We know the decision there was that gov't does not have the authority the pass laws concerning the medical privacy of women, why would they have the authority to pass laws concerning the medical privacy of everyone.
Gary B| 11.15.11 @ 5:27PM
Good point. Precendent is precedent, right?
Give liberals enough room and they will talk in circles, just as daoliver has so aptly pointed out here.
somnolence| 11.15.11 @ 5:19PM
The IRS Commissioner himself said it is unlikely they will enforce the fines if anyone doesn't pay it. There aren't enough jails to lock those up who don't pay it, either. For those whose only income is their savings account, that doesn't qualify as income, and we all know the current interest rate on savings is woeful. Therefore, my wife and I look forward to being subsidized or being on the Medicaid rolls. Yes, it has come down to this, the U.S. has steadily been building up to this situation since 1965. What sense would it make for many people to continue to work when their employer opts out for the function of Obamacare, and other employers get a sweet waiver because their unions sopped up to the Obama message? Most of my adult working life I felt a sense of pride in buying a plan through employer, or being on my wife's plan. Now, with some savings accumulated at age 58, I think I'll just go along with the subsidy or just pay the damn fine, since it won't be much anyway, unless your household income approaches triple digits per annum. You can tell that I'm not optimistic about the decision of SCOTUS. Ultimately, it will be left up to the states, regardless of the Court's decision, and here in generally conservative Indiana, it will probably be optional.
Chamonix| 11.15.11 @ 7:42PM
If SCOTUS approves this, the tentacles of the four arguments they have requested and will have heard will result in an avalanche of lawsuits pursuant to states rights, contract law, equal protection issues and more.
One thing to ponder, who will cover the mandatory individual costs to the welfare recipients and their dependents, the unemployed and their dependents. Let alone the unemployed college grads who are about to default on their student loans. (over 1 trillion $)
Also consider food inflation that is at 5%/yr, millions running out of unemployment......
Additionally think what is going to happen when Iran's nuclear program is attacked which will be soon. I fear one day we will envy our past ability to comment on intellectual sites like Amspec.
Nite| 11.15.11 @ 9:30PM
If the Supreme Court does not dismantle this horrible law, then I will totally lose my respect for this bunch. The Dems rammed this through by tricks and lies. It deserves to be tossed. This bill will not only break all the states but the country and quality care that we currently have, will disappear.
somnolence| 11.15.11 @ 9:55PM
How many on this page know that Israel has developed an anti-cancer vaccine? I guarantee you that the big pharmaceuticals and AMA know. How often have you heard this news trumpeted this week on the nightly news? The info is on the internet to be found. Check it out.
Occam's Tool| 11.16.11 @ 1:38AM
I did---mentioned it elsewhere here. It is designed to prevent cancer recurrence, and is in advanced testing. I have requested that Jack, Clint, and Sheila not use it, as I believe that would be ethically compromising for them.
Occam's Tool| 11.16.11 @ 1:36AM
Well, as the only blogger here who has actually worked as a senior consultant (read, MD) in an NHS, here's my two word take: they suck.
More verbose: there is no real attempt to improve services in an NHS, as that would cost money and there is no corresponding profit gain. Indeed, there is a perverse incentive to deny care as much as possible, as the purpose of an NHS is to claim that "care is available" rather than actually delivering care.
Case in point: my colleagues in Rotorua New Zealand who were Brit trained (let me name names, a lot more fun) Alan Russell and Daniel Smith, spent a great deal of time and effort in attempting to keep their clinic rosters as clear as possible rather than seeing patients. They were paid the same whether or not the time was filled with patients or not. Not allowed more time to eat lunch.
I did not get along with them as I thought I had a mission to help the Maoris as much as possible with care, given the NZ government's horrific failure to provide equitable services to them, and their corresponding horrific life expectancy rate (15% of the population). Maori females live 4 years less than non-Maori MALES in NZ.
Coming soon to a clinic near you: National Health service for Blacks---it is amazing to think just how much Barack hates his own people.
Jason Taylor | 11.17.11 @ 2:22PM
Regardless of the outcome, having the judicial arm check the legislative arm is really cool IMO. Compare to, say, North Korea. Call me stupid if I'm wrong, but I don't think this sort of checking happens too often there.
http://twitter.com/jasontaylor7