Court’s open-minded GOP appointees may give health care a chance

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Navin Johnson, Mar 26, 2012.

  1. Court’s open-minded GOP appointees may give health care a chance

    Democratic appointees on board with Obama

    A curious thing about this week's Supreme Court hearings on President Obama's health care law is that while nobody doubts how the four Democrat-appointed justices will decide, there is no such certainty on how the Republican appointees will rule in the case, which will go a long way toward defining the scope and limits of government power in the 21st century.

    For the past 70 years, liberal-minded justices have taken more uniform views of how far federal power extends while the lines are much more jumbled when it comes to conservative jurisprudence, court watchers say.

    Virtually everyone agrees that the four Democrat-appointed justices will move to uphold the law. Few doubt that Justices Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by Mr. Obama, will join Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, in upholding as constitutional the mandate that individuals obtain medical insurance and the massive Medicaid expansion.

    But among the five other justices, conservative stalwart Clarence Thomas is the only one viewed as a sure vote against the mandate and possibly other parts of the law.

    read on...
  2. pspr


    I hope the justices can read and understand the constitution without trying to read something into it that isn't there.

    Obamacare can be repealed by the next Congress but if the justices decide that Congress and the President can make us buy a product this will set a very dangerous legal precident. We could be forced to buy other things for the good of the country or the economy or for social justice. The limits are boundless if this is not tossed out by the court.
  3. 377OHMS


    My uneducated guess is that the SCOTUS is going to rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. There is precedent for that. Other parts of Obamacare may be left intact but I understand that the whole stupid scheme requires the individual mandate to function to a ruling against it effectively kills Obamacare.

    Frankly, if the SCOTUS rules against Obamacare it may help Obama because he won't have this onerus legislation to defend/implement and he can move on to other things.
  4. jem


    I hope, this will be an opportunity for Sotomayor to show she is a real jurist and not a political hack.

    She will join the majority and strike down at least some of that constitutional offensive detritus.
  5. pspr


    But the left will demand that he run to rewrite the law so it is constitutional. That will be a killer for him.
  6. 377OHMS


    Without the individual mandate the premiums would be very high.
  7. pspr


    No. The rich have lots of money. He'll just find another way to tax those making over $250,000 a year. They can pay for everything, can't they?

  8. 60 Senate votes would be needed,not going to happen
  9. jem


    Interesting... how so?
  10. If they rule against the individual mandate I wonder if that will have any effect on Massachusetts health care or the many states that have an auto insurance mandate.
    Probably won't know unless and until everything happens. Could be interesting.
    #10     Mar 26, 2012