Supreme Court ObamaCare

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

So here we go, next week the SC (not Science Chic, the Supreme court, they are almost as powerful LOL) takes on Obama Care. What do you think will happen?

I'm guessing it passes overall, with a mandate, but with some constraints on Feds power over Commerce.

Lets get this over with and move on. Please vote in the poll.

But over the past 75 years, the court almost always has deferred to Congress when it asserts the commerce power, upholding not only direct regulation of commercial transactions but also activities with "substantial effects" on interstate commerce. Agricultural quotas, environmental laws and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, barring discrimination in hotels and restaurants that might serve interstate travelers, all have been upheld.

Personally I think it is legal, but I don't think the court will decide that way. Will be just like Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade

This case is complicated and will take up 3 full days of arguing the case in front of the court. The longest ever argued before the court. It is not just a question of "overturning Obamacare.

Excerpts below from an excellent primer on next weeks arguments. http://www.npr.org/2012/03/22/149126021 ... n-overview

Monday: Is the penalty a tax?:

SHAPIRO: So the first question is taxes. Now, the health care law says everyone must buy coverage, and if you don't, starting three years from now, in 2015, you're going to have to pay a penalty. So Monday's question...

INSKEEP: (Unintelligible)

SHAPIRO: Exactly. If you don't follow the mandate, you pay this penalty. And Monday's question is: Is the penalty a tax? Here's why that matters: The law says you can only challenge a tax as being unconstitutional if you've already paid the tax. Now, nobody has to pay this penalty until 2015. So if the court says the penalty is a tax, that means the court is not ready to hear the case, they could just bump this to 2015, when presumably things will be a less politically fraught than they are right now in the middle of an election year.

Tuesday: Is the individual mandate is constitutional?

SHAPIRO: OK. Well, this takes us to Tuesday's arguments, which are focused on whether the individual mandate is constitutional. The individual mandate is the requirement that everyone buys health coverage. The people who oppose the law say Congress cannot require every American to buy a product. They can't require Americans to buy broccoli or buy a car any more than they can require an American to buy health coverage.

Supporters of the law say health care is different because everybody in America will at some point in their life need health care. It's not a question of whether you get health coverage; it's just a question of when. And if people are not required to buy health coverage early in life, when they're healthy and everyone is guaranteed coverage when they need it, if you don't require it early on, then everyone will just pile on at the end when it costs the most, and financially the system is unsustainable.

Wednesday: Can you sever the individual mandate from the rest of the law and let the rest of the law stand?

INSKEEP: OK. A lot of questions dealing with that one issue – whether this is covered by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, whether it's a massive overreach by the federal government or not. But if the court then decided for whatever reason that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the next question is, I suppose, is whether that means the whole law would go away.

SHAPIRO: Exactly. And the key word here to listen up for is severability. Can you sever the individual mandate from the rest of the law and let the rest of the law stand? That's the question that Wednesday's arguments are going to be devoted to. So depending on how the court answers each one of these different questions – about the tax, about the individual mandate's constitutionality, about severability, the Commerce Clause, there's questions about Medicaid, depending on how they answer each one of those different questions, we could see the court strike down the whole law, strike down parts of the law, uphold the whole thing, or just punt on the question and kick it a few years down the road.

People have been lining up for days to attend. Quite possibly the biggest governmental change ever for Americans since Social Security.

It's too bad they didn't let CPSAN cover it on TV, I would have liked to watch some of it.

It is possible, like Wyle said, that they postpone the mandate ruling until a tax is paid, that is the law. That would really create a mess though.

If Medicare is Constitutional, the Affordable Health Care Act is Constitutional... I don't see how they can separate the two.

Medicare is actually not mandatory, you do have to pay the taxes, but you don't have to sign up at 65.

Medicare is not foreced, obamacare is with a penalty. Not constitutional.

If you work, you pay medicare taxes. I don't give a flip whether you choose to accept it or not. (In fact, I hope you don't...That'll leave more money for the rest of us.)

"the uninsured's inevitable consumption of health care services helped create the nationwide problem of unaffordable premiums that the Affordable Care Act seeks to solve."

Sooner or later, you consume health care services, whether it is as an insured, or as an emergency case in an emergency room. It's time that those who have chosen to get a free ride, until they consume it in the emergency room at the highest possible rate, pay into the system.

I believe it WILL be found to be constitutional.

I have mixed feelings about no cameras. I was listening to an interview with Mister CSPAN (founder), Brian Lamb last week. He was asked if he thought the politicians acted differently "posing" for the cameras. Some did, of course.

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/21/149080047 ... steps-down

I don't know if the public could disseminate the rules of law in oral arguments. I fear that cable TV would twist and turn soundbites into something that is simply not fact. I think that would degrade the purpose of the Supreme Court. But on the other hand, our government should be open to it's people and that includes the judiciary branch.

Here is another good story regarding attempts to open up the court to cameras:

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/25/149331735 ... or-cameras


SUSAN STAMBERG, BYLINE: Only those lucky enough to get one of the Supreme Court's 400 spectator seats will be able to watch and hear the health care arguments in real time. That's because the nation's highest court has turned down requests to allow live broadcast of this week's proceedings.

NPR's David Welna reports on the latest attempt to push the court into the television age.

DAVID WELNA, BYLINE: Dick Durbin is the Senate's number two Democrat. He's also a champion of open courts. This past week, Durbin rose on the Senate floor to chide the nine justices who occupy the majestic columned building that faces the Capitol.

SENATOR DICK DURBIN: It's not too much to ask the third branch of government at the highest level to share the arguments before the court with the people of America. Understand, there'll be hundreds of people present and watching this as it occurs. It isn't confidential or private. It's only kept away from the rest of America because this court doesn't want America to see the proceedings.

WELNA: Durbin and other senators wrote Chief Justice John Roberts back in November to ask that this week's oral arguments be televised live. Roberts replied finally came nine days ago. The court, he said, respectfully declined the senators' request. Roberts did offer though to make audio recordings of the arguments available several hours after each day's session had concluded. Durbin was not impressed.

DURBIN: For that gesture, I guess we can congratulate the United States Supreme Court for entering the radio age.