SCOTUS Day 3: Individual Mandate is Toast; What about the rest of the law? - Open Thread

As I've said before, this meshes perfectly with the argument Ron Paul should be making the central theme of his campaign.

http://www.dailypaul.com/223767/what-ron-paul-needs-to-say-i...

The mandate is the counter-balance to the pre-existing conditions clause (this or any of it is constitutional??) meaning that without the mandate, people can wait until after they get sick to buy insurance, saving individuals thousands in premiums and destroying the insurance companies in the process.

Since the insurance companies won't go for this, the end of the mandate could mean the end of the entire bill.

But I could see the government deciding that they will pay the mandate premiums themselves, effectively writing the insurance companies a check for every citizen who decides not to buy (and who would?).

And then the corporations would probably choose to not pay for health insurance wherever they could (why would they?).

So this is more likely a road to single-payor government healthcare. :-\

The history of the court is that it has upheld the Congresses dictatorial command of the entities of the U.S. The basic right of the people of those entities are only those granted by the Congress and the Constitution, that we are all familiar with, does not apply. This is the main reason we have an income tax today. The rules of the court bear out this line of thinking. In rule 47 the jurisdiction of the court is defined. The word “include” is the key word because is does not allow for any other entities that so many “assume” is included in the word State. This whole line of legal slant began with Marbury v. Madison which was a dispute over a Justice of the Peace position in the District of Columbia. In those days as today the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction in the several States like for example New Jersey. In this light I would put my money on the Court ruling the Act is “constitutional” according to its past history and according to which constitution they are talking about.
here are a few historical cases and Acts that backup this reasoning: Northwest Ordinance, Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act , The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890), for examples

These arguments I am hearing on this case are just complete nonsense. There is nothing about health care in any form Obamacare or not that is constitutional. So, there are all these arguments being made which essentially validate healthcare on at least some level. Its not even constitutional law arguments I am hearing, its just a pile of crap superficially appearing to be constitutional arguments. The attorney is trying so hard not to argue that medicare and healthcare on their own are unconstitutional when they absolutely are in some attempt to make a politcal compromise.

The arguments from Kagan and Sotamayor and the 90 yo hag are just hilariously 3rd-grade level arguments. These people have no business being Justices. I have nothing against homosexuals but does anyone find it a bit beyond chance that we currently have two lesbians on the SC? They put them in these positions because they can be compromised. I would be willing to bet that both Kagan and Sotamayor have been involved with underage girls... I 'm not even BSing with this. For anyone who has seen Conspiracy of Silence you might be aware of how big this is with the political class.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_de...

That is funny...mo laws mo money.

Mean while the Patriot Act and NDAA are fine and dandy.. proof that the judicial is now officially political. One of the framers major worries..

As this law gets pummeled by the supreme court this quote comes to mind.

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. ” - Samuel Adams.

But...in June, when the Supreme court is expected to render their decision, I will pray that through out this land that these brushfires of freedom will be rekindled with every single copy of the 2700 page Obama care bill!!

gives end of day 3 interview:
http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/scotus-attorney-rem...

sorry-duplicate.

...that the attorneys forgot to put a severability clause in there.

Which means, if one part of it is thrown out...it is all thrown out.

We'll see...

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

I'll be thrilled to be wrong but I'm just not convinced the SC will throw this law out. There are, LITERALLY, TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS riding on this law being passed. Do you really think the puppet masters wouldn't make sure they have the votes before passing this thing? Remember, these "Justices" are part of the Elite that run the show. In the end, when the puppet masters tell them what to do, they do it. Indeed, they are the worst offenders precisely because they answer to no one. But even if they are legit, maybe some "tragedy" will befall a conservative justice between now and June so that it becomes a deadlock. People kill for much less than what this law represents and I wouldn't put it past the puppet masters to do someone in if they didn't want to toe the line.

Mostly I think all this talk of striking down the mandate is just media-hyped baloney. By playing up the law's demise the elite convince the sheeple to relax and wait till June for vindication. Then, in june, SURPRISE! the SC goes 5-4 in favor of the law and all the talking heads spend weeks discussing the intricate nuance of the decision. I can hear Toobin now waxing poetic over the keen insight of Justice XXX and the interesting effects this will have on our future, etc. ALL BS made for the consumption of the masses. I suspect the decision to declare this thing constitutional was made two years ago. The rest is theater.

Maybe I'm wrong, but a Supreme COurt that continues to uphold innumerable laws despite the clear text of teh CONSTITUTION insisting otherwise, doesn't exactly inspire confidence and certainly does not give me cause to celebrate prematurely.

anyones interested.

Supreme Court oral arguments on severability—
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74596.html

It ain't toast until it pops up. Or something like that. I think the Supremes scheduled the severability discussion before starting. The fact that they are discussing severability does not mean five of them are for-sure going to vote against the individual mandate.

The END of Obamacare "individual mandate" helps Obama AND Mitt Romney by removing the issue as a "sticking point" with voters. It also removes one of the big issues that elected Tea Party Republicans to Congress. I had already predicted the Democrats will make huge gains in Congress this election with Mitt Romney leading the ticket. On the other hand, if Ron Paul leads the ticket, he can galvanize GOP candidates and overcome the "bad taste" left by Boehner's repeated betrayals.