Will SCOTUS strike down the Affordable Healthcare Law

[The Annoyed Man]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/ ... e_law.html
Unequal Protection Under the Health Care Law
February 15, 2012
By Hal Scherz

One of life's minor annoyances occurs when someone receives preferential treatment because of his wealth or perceived power. Many people have experienced this firsthand when a "VIP" comes into a restaurant and jumps ahead while they've been waiting for a table. This offends most Americans because it is contrary to our sense of fair play. It divides people into elites and everyone else.

This is where we are heading with health care. Don't think so? Well, on October 11, 2011, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) declared that PSA screening for prostate cancer in healthy men was no longer recommended. No urologists -- the acknowledged experts in the treatment of prostate cancer -- were involved in this decision. During the time that PSA screening has been available, prostate cancer deaths have steadily declined. Then why have these recommendations been issued? Because in a top-down, government-controlled health care system, dollars need to be trimmed and patients cannot get everything that they want, even when it means screening for cancer. Patients have no say over their health care, and the government decides where health care dollars are allocated -- perhaps instead to Planned Parenthood for abortions. Incidentally, President Obama underwent PSA screening several months ago.

Get that? Obama wants us all to pay for abortions and birth control pills in the name of "reproductive health" for women; but when it comes to REAL reproductive health, a simple and inexpensive routine blood test which is a reliable indicator for cancer in the male reproductive system is no longer recommended. Men are being robbed of REAL reproductive health in order to help pay for aborting babies in the name female contraception.

In addition to BHO, I am also someone who has to deal with prostate issues and requires regular screening. Guys, this president literally doesn't care if all of you die of metastatic prostate cancer (yes, it is VERY terminal if not discovered and treated) as long as tramps keep receiving free abortions that you pay for.

This bill MUST be overturned.

[Hoosier Daddy]

There are a lot of Roman Catholic Latinos. If they still vote for Obama after this, they should expect more of the same.

[srothstein]

After reading all of the posts in the thread again, including mine, I thought I would point out that there are two separate discussions going on. One is how we feel about the law itself, as in if we feel it is unconstitutional, fair, proper, or should have ever been passed. The otehr is how we feel the SCOTUS will rule on the issue. I also thought I might need to make my position a little more clear.

I think the law is one of the worst abuses of federal power and one of the last major steps toward socialism. We need to repeal it. Yes, I do think there are some good parts in it, but I don't think it is the job of the federal government.

But, I can see legal ways that the SCOTUS could rule the thing is constitutional. My interpretation is that it is not, but I am not sure that the SCOTUS will agree. One of the great strengths and great weaknesses of our Constitution is that some of the phrases are are vague enough to have different meanings. One example of this is the use of the term "cruel and unusual punishment" in the Eighth Amendment. Look at how we have used this phrase to make legal or illegal such sentences as the death penalty or chain gangs.

Relevant to this law is the phrase regulate interstate commerce. Just exactly what is legitimate regulation is not spelled out, and neither is exactly what is interstate commerce. This vagueness is why I am not sure the law will be ruled unconstitutional and why I am not sure the court would be wrong in saying so. We would be much better off working to get the law repealed through the legislative process than counting on the court.

[apostate]

To be fair, the Constitution doesn't use the phrase interstate commerce. It says Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. It should be obvious, even to a Supreme Court Justice, there's no need for the last 13 words had they intended to include all commerce.

[The Annoyed Man]

Relevant to this law is the phrase regulate interstate commerce. Just exactly what is legitimate regulation is not spelled out, and neither is exactly what is interstate commerce. This vagueness is why I am not sure the law will be ruled unconstitutional and why I am not sure the court would be wrong in saying so. We would be much better off working to get the law repealed through the legislative process than counting on the court.

I honestly think that if this law is not overturned by the court, we will be at a tipping point for some kind of significantly traumatic reset button, possibly one involving violence nationwide. There are just too many people who are bitterly BITTERLY opposed, and who may take their anger out in violent manners against those elected officials who voted for it. I would not—and let me be clear that I am not advocating here—be surprised if people started taking potshots at those representatives and senators who voted for this abomination.

I personally feel so strongly about this, that I could not be anymore outraged if Congress had re-instituted slavery, because I believe that the healthcare bill is no less a violation of my rights as a sovereign citizen and it makes us slaves to the whim of every commie pinko bastard democrat who is determined to turn the USA into Cuba. If I can't even decline to buy a product I don't want—and more importantly, don't need—without being fined a significant chunk of cash nearly equivalent to a monthly insurance premium each and every month by the IRS, then how can anyone legitimately argue that I still have rights? If they can do this to you, they can come take your guns too. They can imprison you without a trial. They can quarter troops in your house. They can search you, and detain you as long as they want. If they get away with this, they can do anything they want to you, and you will have no recourse..........except at the bullet box, because apparently the ballot box is broken. A Congress that is this far out of touch with A) what people want, and B) what rights they have, is a Congress that has lost all moral authority. If SCOTUS lacks the courage to say "ENOUGH!!!," then I really do think that the backblast could push this country into real third world-style political violence, with people getting disappeared, and the degradation of democracy into dictatorial oligarchy.

I know that might sound paranoid to some, but I really am truly worried about this stuff. It is exactly this kind of legislation that will lead to the dissolution of our political system, and any access to the American Dream. True patriots simply must do whatever is required in the way of exercising their political rights while they still have them to get this thing overthrown; and then to vote every crappy toxic democrat out of office and ensure that their party ceases to exist as a political force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Rea ... d_Medicine

Reagan opens by saying that in 1927 socialist Norman Thomas said that the American people would never vote for socialism, but "under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program."

{snip}

Reagan says that "Government has invaded the free precincts of private citizens," stating that the U.S. government owns "1/5th of the total industrial capacity of the United States." Reagan says "One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it." Reagan cites the failure of president Harry Truman's national health insurance proposal as evidence of the American people's rejection of socialized medicine.

Reagan describes Representative Aime Forand as having introduced a bill which would institute "compulsory health insurance" for all people of social security age. Forand is quoted as having said, “If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can extend the program after that." Forand is likened to labor union leader Walter Reuther, who is quoted as having said, "It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record of backing a program of national health insurance." The Forand bill is described as being praised by socialists: "They say once the Forand bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Now we can’t say we haven’t been warned."

We have been warned. There was a time when democrats could be counted on to be virulently anti-communist (JFK comes to mind). Not any longer. From now on, any democrat is going to have to prove to me that he is a friend of the Constitution, or as far as I am concerned, his voting makes him a domestic enemy of it.

[i8godzilla]

Oral arguments are now underway. The audio recordings should be available at ~12:00PM from the main SCOTUS webpage.

There are two questions:

1. Whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to
enact the minimum coverage provision.
Petitioners also suggest that the Court direct the parties to address the
following question:
2. Whether the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum
coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is barred by
the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. 7421(a).
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-11021, 11-11067

The first question is the real crux of the issue. However, depending on how the second question is ruled upon the first may become mute. Based on the unanimous decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency I am hopeful that the Court will further squash provisions of the Anti-Injunction Act.

Relevant to this law is the phrase regulate interstate commerce. Just exactly what is legitimate regulation is not spelled out, and neither is exactly what is interstate commerce. This vagueness is why I am not sure the law will be ruled unconstitutional and why I am not sure the court would be wrong in saying so.
--snip--

Without a doubt this has been a question that the Court has struggled with many times. According to some legal talking heads, the question should be what was intended when written. Some have claimed that in the 18th Century the phrase regulate interstate commerce was to mean keeping it regular--that is prevent barriers from being put in place. This is a much different view than today's modern interpretation. The floodgates to Congress' vast expansion of powers comes from Wickard v. Filburn. Based on the this and the other cases I cited in my OP it is unclear to me what path the Court will follow. This case is as important, if not more, than Wickard v. Filburn. A ruling allowing the individual mandate to remain in place will give Congress virtually unlimited power to force its' will on the American people. To me this is the real question: How much power does Congress have?

[RoyGBiv]

Day one... Mostly good news..

This is significant. Justices agree that the Penalty for non-compliance is not a "Tax".
This takes the legs out from under several arguments supporters would use.

"This is not attached to a tax," said Justice Stephen Breyer.

Pressing the matter further, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the purpose of the fine for non-compliance is to get people to leave the ranks of the uninsured. "This is not a revenue raising measure. If it's successful, no revenue will be raised," she said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03 ... hnicality/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[C-dub]

To read or hear some of what went on in there today was interesting. I hope it is a good sign for the obliteration of that atrocity.

[i8godzilla]

Today's arguments are underway.

One of the important questions is whether or not the case is even valid because of the Anti-Injunction Act. If the penalty is a tax or a fine? If found to be a tax, then the rest of the case could be kicked back until someone actually pays the tax.

"General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax," Alito asked. "Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act? "

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03 ... z1qKFDYrQj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RoyGBiv]

I wish I could be there.. The lack of even CSPAN coverage is unforgivable in this day/age.

[i8godzilla]

Today's session has wrapped up. It is reported that swing vote Kennedy asked why his decision not to purchase something subjected him to regulation. When I can find the actual quote I'll post it.

If his question is a signal, it may be good news for those wanting to overturn the mandate.

[RoyGBiv]

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03 ... obamacare/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JUSTICE ALITO: ......... it appears to me that the CBO has estimated that the average premium for a single insurance policy in the non-group market would be roughly $5,800 in -- in 2016.

Respondents -- the economists have supported -- the Respondents estimate that a young, healthy individual targeted by the mandate on average consumes about $854 in health services each year. So the mandate is forcing these people to provide a huge subsidy to the insurance companies for other purposes that the act wishes to serve, but isn't -- if those figures are right, isn't it the case that what this mandate is really doing is not requiring the people who are subject to it to pay for the services that they are going to consume? It is requiring them to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else.

VERRILLI: No, I think that -- I do think that's what the Respondents argue. It's just not right. I think it -- it really gets to a fundamental problem with their argument.

JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: If you're going to have insurance, that's how insurance works.
......................

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Could you help -- help me with this. Assume for the moment -- you may disagree. Assume for the moment that this is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?

I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional, but, even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate is, I think, a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?
...............

JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait. That's -- that's -it's both "Necessary and Proper." What you just said addresses what's necessary. Yes, has to be reasonably adapted. Necessary does not mean essential, just reasonably adapted. But in addition to being necessary, it has to be proper. And we've held in two cases that something that was reasonably adapted was not proper because it violated the sovereignty of the States, which was implicit in the constitutional structure.

The argument here is that this also is -- may be necessary, but it's not proper because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it's supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that's what all this questioning has been about. What -- what is left? If the government can do this, what, what else can it not do?
...................
JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule.
And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.

VERRILLI: I don't think so, Justice Kennedy, because it is predicated on the participation of these individuals in the market for health care services. Now, it happens to be that this is a market in which, aside from the groups that the statute excludes, virtually everybody participates. But it is a regulation of their participation in that market.

Important stuff...

To hear anything encouraging from Bader-Ginsberg is good news indeed and Kennedy, who many view as the swing vote, seems intent on limiting Federal powers here and requiring a higher standard than previous Commerce Clause cases in order to adopt a mandate... Kennedy: "... when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate is, I think, a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution? "

Sweating, praying.

I'm going to bet 6/3 against the mandate, but a split decision on whether the law can stand without it.. 5/4, either way on that one. Coin flip right now.

Today's Audio: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argume ... 98-Tuesday" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[hi-power]

I'm still skeptical of a "good" outcome, but this is clearly good news today: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... ve-trouble

Obama healthcare reform law 'in grave, grave trouble'

[puma guy]

Justice Ginsburg noted that if everyone doesn't participate it will be more expensive for everyone else. I assume she'll vote it's Constitutional. IANAL but what legal point is this based on? Not everyone buys gasoline but everybody depends on it in some way. We need to pay into a pool to pay for gasoline since at one point or another we all use transportation. Maybe a bad analogy, but I thought SCOTUS decisions were supposed to be based on rule of law not economics.

[Heartland Patriot]

Relevant to this law is the phrase regulate interstate commerce. Just exactly what is legitimate regulation is not spelled out, and neither is exactly what is interstate commerce. This vagueness is why I am not sure the law will be ruled unconstitutional and why I am not sure the court would be wrong in saying so. We would be much better off working to get the law repealed through the legislative process than counting on the court.

I honestly think that if this law is not overturned by the court, we will be at a tipping point for some kind of significantly traumatic reset button, possibly one involving violence nationwide. There are just too many people who are bitterly BITTERLY opposed, and who may take their anger out in violent manners against those elected officials who voted for it. I would not—and let me be clear that I am not advocating here—be surprised if people started taking potshots at those representatives and senators who voted for this abomination.

I personally feel so strongly about this, that I could not be anymore outraged if Congress had re-instituted slavery, because I believe that the healthcare bill is no less a violation of my rights as a sovereign citizen and it makes us slaves to the whim of every commie pinko bastard democrat who is determined to turn the USA into Cuba. If I can't even decline to buy a product I don't want—and more importantly, don't need—without being fined a significant chunk of cash nearly equivalent to a monthly insurance premium each and every month by the IRS, then how can anyone legitimately argue that I still have rights? If they can do this to you, they can come take your guns too. They can imprison you without a trial. They can quarter troops in your house. They can search you, and detain you as long as they want. If they get away with this, they can do anything they want to you, and you will have no recourse..........except at the bullet box, because apparently the ballot box is broken. A Congress that is this far out of touch with A) what people want, and B) what rights they have, is a Congress that has lost all moral authority. If SCOTUS lacks the courage to say "ENOUGH!!!," then I really do think that the backblast could push this country into real third world-style political violence, with people getting disappeared, and the degradation of democracy into dictatorial oligarchy.

I know that might sound paranoid to some, but I really am truly worried about this stuff. It is exactly this kind of legislation that will lead to the dissolution of our political system, and any access to the American Dream. True patriots simply must do whatever is required in the way of exercising their political rights while they still have them to get this thing overthrown; and then to vote every crappy toxic democrat out of office and ensure that their party ceases to exist as a political force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Rea ... d_Medicine

Reagan opens by saying that in 1927 socialist Norman Thomas said that the American people would never vote for socialism, but "under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program."

{snip}

Reagan says that "Government has invaded the free precincts of private citizens," stating that the U.S. government owns "1/5th of the total industrial capacity of the United States." Reagan says "One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it." Reagan cites the failure of president Harry Truman's national health insurance proposal as evidence of the American people's rejection of socialized medicine.

Reagan describes Representative Aime Forand as having introduced a bill which would institute "compulsory health insurance" for all people of social security age. Forand is quoted as having said, “If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can extend the program after that." Forand is likened to labor union leader Walter Reuther, who is quoted as having said, "It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record of backing a program of national health insurance." The Forand bill is described as being praised by socialists: "They say once the Forand bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Now we can’t say we haven’t been warned."

We have been warned. There was a time when democrats could be counted on to be virulently anti-communist (JFK comes to mind). Not any longer. From now on, any democrat is going to have to prove to me that he is a friend of the Constitution, or as far as I am concerned, his voting makes him a domestic enemy of it.

I made this point to the esteemed srothstein...that if you don't pay, then you will be fined...and if you don't pay the fine, then people with guns will come to arrest you...that is using force and coercion. The end result to you not paying (or obtaining health care) is to have your freedom removed from you and be incarcerated into a place where generally nefarious things are done to you physically by the other inmates who are NOT in there for simply not getting healthcare, but for things that are much, much worse. I equate that with being tortured...if they come for me because I don't have the healthcare that they mandated, and I don't pay the fine, then why would I not simply resist violently, KNOWING THAT IN THE END, I WILL BE TORTURED? Many times through history, dictators and other repressive governments have come for people who didn't resist...how did they fare after being taken? Usually very, very badly...