heckofajobbrownie Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 I keep reading polls from Constitutional scholars showing that they think Obamacare's mandate will be upheld by the Supreme Court. Anyone want to guess how they'll rule? I'll go first: I'm guessing it gets upheld 7-2, with only Thomas and Alito dissenting. I have no particular expertise in this area and could be wrong, but that goes for all of us, so go ahead and guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 I keep reading polls from Constitutional scholars showing that they think Obamacare's mandate will be upheld by the Supreme Court. Anyone want to guess how they'll rule? I'll go first: I'm guessing it gets upheld 7-2, with only Thomas and Alito dissenting. I have no particular expertise in this area and could be wrong, but that goes for all of us, so go ahead and guess. You are wrong about that last part W/e Cal, T and Bunker say will be right, and they'll let you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 I will cop out without an actual prediction but I wouldn't be surprised either way. I do think it would set a hell of a precedent the next time a regime on either side wants to force something like this on the citizens . But it's been a long time since I had any expectations of protection. And honestly in this case, though I don't think it's probably within the spirit of the constitution, I prefer to force the deadbeats to cough up. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 to bad for you that yur constitutional scholars only get one vote. But think about it; that's all it takes to remove any right you may hold dear. For good or ill. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 Heck, just so I don't seem like too much of a puss.... A pint of IPA on a 5/4 defyeat. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 I can see that, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 26, 2012 Report Share Posted March 26, 2012 The rule of law, lest a liberal Supreme Court justice deny it... is not about the good or bad about this healthcare fiasco. It's about our Constitution. And the Supreme Court, in as much as I have read about it, and read lower Constitution experts opinions on it...., will rule against the mandate, and will rule that it negates the entirety of the ClowardandPivenCare corrupt law. Because, they wrote it that way, for ALL of it to be considered a package. So, in their corrupt thinking, they wrote it to be completely upheld, or completely voted down as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But at least two of the judges will probably get laid by Obamao and will vote for it to be upheld. The demise of the bill is the mandate, which cannot stand. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 People are now thinking that you're right, Steve: 5-4 striking down the mandate, based on oral arguments so far. Kennedy doesn't seem like he's in the mood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 People are now thinking that you're right, Steve: 5-4 striking down the mandate, based on oral arguments so far. Kennedy doesn't seem like he's in the mood. And again even though I think that's the right call constitutionally, I'm fine with the mandate. But even so the slippery slope would concern me. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 That seems to be the problem with the government's case today. They couldn't come up with a good answer to the question of where it stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Dahlia Lithwick: One thing was clear after the two hour session at the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act: The outcome of President Obama’s signature legislative achievement probably rests on the shoulders of two men—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Or, to put it differently, everyone else seems to have staked a clear position. The court’s four liberals appear poised to uphold the law. Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia appear ready to strike it down. Justice Clarence Thomas was always assumed to be a vote against the Affordable Care Act and didn’t speak today. So, we are left to guess about Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, who based on their questions appear to be someplace in the middle. The betting on the steps of the court afterward split among those who suspected the final vote will be 5-4 to strike it down, or 6-3 to uphold it. I didn’t hear anyone taking bets on anything in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 kagan is a dirtbag if she votes to uphold it, after refusing to recuse herself. An Obamao plant right on the US Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 A few things keep this from being the slam dunk that's it probably should be. Income tax is perfectly constitutional and certainly purchase is a lot of things many of us don't want to pay for. Also the restrictions on the second amendment seem contrary to the original intent. And most recently the eminent domain case makes it constitutional for the government to seize your property should they decide it's in their best interest. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 A few things keep this from being the slam dunk that's it probably should be. Income tax is perfectly constitutional and certainly purchase is a lot of things many of us don't want to pay for. Also the restrictions on the second amendment seem contrary to the original intent. And most recently the eminent domain case makes it constitutional for the government to seize your property should they decide it's in their best interest. WSS The income tax is irrelevant to this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Here's one question they're dealing with: is everyone in the health market anyway, since everyone will require health care services over the course of their life? And if so, why would requiring citizens who are already in the health care market (by virtue of being human and alive) buy health care insurance be out of the realm of the powers of government? The argument is that health care is a different market than broccoli or funeral services or cell phones, to use the examples that the court brought up yesterday. Because everyone uses it, whether they pay for it or not. And those who don't pay for it shift the costs to those who do pay for it. So, is everyone already in the health care market? Seems to me that answer is yes. Roberts seemed to think so too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 When Justice Scalia was asked what parts of the law will be dismissed or will the whole law be deemed unconstitutional he asked "do you expect us to read all 2,700 pages of this?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 So far, the obamaocare advocates are getting the fumblies and dumblies in the early going. It's amazing that Heck thinks it's definately going to be upheld... cept now he has to admit - it may very well be burnt toast. From what I've read - the entire thing will go down in flames, because, like I said, the brownshirt dems wrote it with no provision for parsing out what isn't going to fly. They did it on purpose, sure. Now, they reap what they sow. It's pretty sad that no matter what the merit of any case is... the leftist dirtbags on the Supreme Court will vote in line with the left. No matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 It's amazing that Heck thinks it's definately going to be upheld... Me: "I'm guessing it gets upheld 7-2, with only Thomas and Alito dissenting. I have no particular expertise in this area and could be wrong," Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 The income tax is irrelevant to this case. The reasons I disagree are these. First it seems to me that nothing is irrelevant when it comes to world class litigators. Second it seems to me that stripping away freedoms we once took to be guaranteed is sometimes found constitutional by no more of a margin been 5 to 4. And this is a pretty good example of why I don't revere the constitution as you think I should. Just the fact that it can be completely re written by such a politically motivated whim from either side. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 You'll notice that no one is referring to the income tax in oral arguments, either to support or oppose ACA. In fact, all the justices seem to agree that single payer plan that simply taxes citizens and provides insurance is the more Constitutional way to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 You'll notice that no one is referring to the income tax in oral arguments, either to support or oppose ACA. In fact, all the justices seem to agree that single payer plan that simply taxes citizens and provides insurance is the more Constitutional way to do it. I didn't say it was part of the arguments. I'm just saying the decisions similar to that make everything such a grey area. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 I don't find the idea that we select nine qualified, experienced justices to be the last line in deciding what is and what is not Constitutional to be so worrisome. Someone has to. I think this whole case is fascinating. I wish it were more divorced from politics, but this is the world we live in. Scalia sounds like he's vying for the hour between Cavuto and O'Reilly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Paul Ryan's plan the Republicans just passed: $2,300 refundable tax credit to individuals who purchase private health insurance $5,700 credit to families who purchase private health insurance. $0 tax credit for those who don't purchase insurance. Obama's plan: Those who don’t purchase private insurance are assessed a tax penalty of $695, or 2.5 percent of their income, whichever is higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 So, without taking anything else into account, you like the Ryan plan better? Good. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 (Shakes head. Asks self why always this crap, day after day, and to what end.) Just wondering why one is the end of freedom, and the other is saving it. They look pretty similar to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 (Shakes head. Asks self why always this crap, day after day, and to what end.) Just wondering why one is the end of freedom, and the other is saving it. They look pretty similar to me. Crap? I think you forget who you're talking to sometimes. I've never said it was the end of freedom I say is probably inevitable. I also say that I wish it would have been a better bill and like you say there probably won't be another 1 for a long time. But as I'm sure you'd point out to me if I made such a simplistic comparison this is a part of a much larger budgetary matter. But if either party wants to sport me some of the thousands I spend on health insurance, great. And if anybody is so enthralled with the european system then let's make the lawyers follow those rules too. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Paul Ryan's plan the Republicans just passed: $2,300 refundable tax credit to individuals who purchase private health insurance $5,700 credit to families who purchase private health insurance. $0 tax credit for those who don't purchase insurance. Obama's plan: Those who don’t purchase private insurance are assessed a tax penalty of $695, or 2.5 percent of their income, whichever is higher. The Ryan plan looks like a winner for those who own small businesses, and no penalty for not purchasing sounds great. Obama should've hired Ryan to write the health care law. The man is a genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Crap? I think you forget who you're talking to sometimes. I've never said it was the end of freedom I say is probably inevitable. I also say that I wish it would have been a better bill and like you say there probably won't be another 1 for a long time. But as I'm sure you'd point out to me if I made such a simplistic comparison this is a part of a much larger budgetary matter. But if either party wants to sport me some of the thousands I spend on health insurance, great. And if anybody is so enthralled with the european system then let's make the lawyers follow those rules too. WSS No, no. I was commenting on your post. The ones that aren't a joke, but also aren't a point, and leave me scratching my head. The "So you like the Ryan plan better - good" stuff. I have no idea what to do with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 scratching your head? Lice will do that. I hope you don't share hats with anybody, just in case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 3, 2012 Report Share Posted April 3, 2012 I saw that this morning. He said it passed by a wide margin. I forget, was it a 51 vote win? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.