What happens if the Supreme Court strikes down 'Obamacare'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Today's questioning leaves me less optimistic. Depends on which line of thought Kennedy was following when he expressed concern for insurance companies if the mandate were struck down.
 
jWhatever the court decides, and I have no guesses which direction they will go, the liberal reaction to the Court's questions is astonishing.
Morning Jay: Why Were Liberals So Surprised By the Supreme Court? | The Weekly Standard
The problem for the left is that they do not have a lot of interaction with conservatives, whose intellects are often disparaged, ideas are openly mocked, and intentions regularly questioned. Conservative ideas rarely make it onto the pages of most middle- and high-brow publications of news and opinion the left frequents. So, liberals regularly find themselves surprised when their ideas face pushback.
I think that is exactly what happened with Obamacare. The attitude of President Obama (a former con law lecturer at the University of Chicago, no less!), Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid was very much that they are doing big, important things to help the American people, why wouldn’t that be constitutional? No less an important Democratic leader as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee cited the (nonexistent) “good and welfare clause” to justify the mandate.
Having no intellectual sympathy for the conservative criticism of this view, they rarely encountered it on the news programs they watch, the newspapers they read every day, or the journals they peruse over the weekends. Instead, they encountered a steady drumbeat of fellow liberals echoing Kagan’s attitude: it’s a boatload of money, what the heck is the problem?
Then, insofar as they encountered conservative pushback, they mostly ignored it.
Click to expand...

The echo-chamber is not a good place for the media to live. It makes them look stupid and unprepared:
Yesterday, after another two hours of argument, he [Toobin] suggested it might even be a “plane wreck.”
That was the general consensus across the board. It held that the two lawyers arguing against ObamaCare — Paul Clement and Michael Carvin — were dazzlingly effective, while the administration’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, put in a mediocre performance.
True enough. But here’s the thing: There was nothing new in what Clement and Carvin said.
Their arguments were featured in briefs already submitted to the court and available for general inspection. And they’d already been given weight by the two judicial opinions against the constitutionality of ObamaCare issued by federal district court judges — one by Henry Hudson in Virginia in December 2010, the other by Roger Vinson in Florida in January 2011.
The briefs exist. The decisions exist. You can Google them. They are strong, fluent, well-reasoned and legitimate. They take ObamaCare seriously, and they argue against it at the highest possible level.
Thus, the strength of the conservative arguments only came as a surprise to Toobin, Greenhouse and others because they evidently spent two years putting their fingers in their ears and singing, “La la la, I’m not listening” whenever the conservative argument was being advanced.
Click to expand...

Read more: Supreme Court shocks liberals—John Podhoretz - NYPOST.com

Chris Matthews says he hasn't heard anybody talk about the possibility the Supreme Court might overturn Obama care, so he was taken totally by surprise. Whether you like Obama care or not, the fact that Mathews had no clue that there were any possible problems with the bill ought to make anybody wary of ever trusting his journalism again.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/327947.php:

If liberals not in the media choose to live in The Cocoon, that's their right. But shouldn't media-types who are supposed to inform the public have a passing acquaintance with the arguments of the right?
How can you keep your audience informed if you yourself are deliberately misinformed, by voluntary personal choice?
John Podhoretz writes about the psychic shock when The Cocoon falls apart.
They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so.
That’s what happened this week. There appears to be no question in the mind of anyone who read the transcripts or listened to the oral arguments that the conservative lawyers and justices made mincemeat out of the Obama administration’s advocates and the liberal members of the court.
This came as a startling shock to the liberals who write about the court.
​
Jeffrey Toobin's job is not, supposedly, to offer his own opinions. It's to offer analysis of the court's actual jurisprudence (not just the Jurisprudence of the Left-- that is, Constitutional law in which only liberal opinions are recognized or considered law) and grounded speculation/prediction about the behavior of the court.
For the former, you need to read conservative legal opinions, and not just ignore them as Uncouth. For the latter, you also need to read these opinions, plus briefs in an upcoming case, and make unbiased judgments about what the court will do.
Not what you, as a Man of the Left, wish it to do. But what it probably will do.

​
Click to expand...


​
 
428857_3489596407822_1508826245_33171503_824864923_n.jpg
 
Foxrac said:
Do you think that individual mandate will be strike down since rest of other health care reform will still survive?
Click to expand...

well - if individual mandate is struck down, then rest of other health care reform is pointless since it depends on individual mandates
 
In oral arguments in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Justice Stephen Breyer “promised” he had not read the entirety of the 2,700-page health-care legislation the court was examining.

He also suggested it would be unreasonable for the lawyers arguing over the constitutionality of the law to expect the justices to “spend a year reading all this” to determine which parts of it should be allowed to stand if the court decides to strike down as unconstitutional the law’s mandate that individuals must buy health insurance.
Click to expand...

Justice Breyer on Obamacare: 'I Haven

Obamacare was a bill voted in favor of by Democrats (and no Republicans), a bill that Nancy Pelosi famously said that, paraphrasing, "You have to pass it in order to see what's in it." It was Nancy who who gave Congress three days to look through the 2,700 pages bill, and even that she reneged on that passed the bill even before the 3 days was up. And I guarantee you that those who voted on it never read through the entire 2,700 pages bill to see what's in it. And I remember the debate in AD where a few ADers claimed to have read the bill in its entirety at the time it was crafted in a few short days while their BS meter maxed out. It is just as equally as silly to expect justices to read all of the 2,700 pages of the bill on deciding which provisions or language should be dropped or kept. What we have was a bunch of idiots in Congress who didn't know better to pass that bill (without reading it all), but had to pass it in order to see what's in it.

Morons.
 
Jiro said:
428857_3489596407822_1508826245_33171503_824864923_n.jpg
Click to expand...

I am a woman, and even if I trusted those graphics to be neutrally sourced, unbiased, accurate depictions (and I don't)- it would not matter to me. What I care about is whether or not the laws passed in this country are Constitutional.

If this is seen as Constitutional, then we have lost all limits on government authority, and that is far worse than paying for your own birth control.
 
kokonut said:
Justice Breyer on Obamacare: 'I Haven

Obamacare was a bill voted in favor of by Democrats (and no Republicans), a bill that Nancy Pelosi famously said that, paraphrasing, "You have to pass it in order to see what's in it." It was Nancy who who gave Congress three days to look through the 2,700 pages bill, and even that she reneged on that passed the bill even before the 3 days was up. And I guarantee you that those who voted on it never read through the entire 2,700 pages bill to see what's in it. And I remember the debate in AD where a few ADers claimed to have read the bill in its entirety at the time it was crafted in a few short days while their BS meter maxed out. It is just as equally as silly to expect justices to read all of the 2,700 pages of the bill on deciding which provisions or language should be dropped or kept. What we have was a bunch of idiots in Congress who didn't know better to pass that bill (without reading it all), but had to pass it in order to see what's in it.

Morons.
Click to expand...

I think it should be illegal for Congress to ever pass a bill without reading it first.
To do otherwise is grossly irresponsible.
 
Grayma said:
I am a woman, and even if I trusted those graphics to be neutrally sourced, unbiased, accurate depictions (and I don't)- it would not matter to me. What I care about is whether or not the laws passed in this country are Constitutional.

If this is seen as Constitutional, then we have lost all limits on government authority, and that is far worse than paying for your own birth control.
Click to expand...

One of the problem is that insurance companies in each state are protected from interstate competition by the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945), which grants states the right to regulate health plans within their borders. So, of course, one state insurance plans could be higher than a neighboring state, and if competition were allowed, people could buy insurance plans that are cheaper or have more or better coverages in another state than their own.
(see more here - Out-of-state Health Insurance - Allowing the Purchase (State Implementation Report)).

Here's an interesting article to read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/u...nce-mandate-stirs-dissent.html?pagewanted=all
 
Last edited:
Grayma said:
I think it should be illegal for Congress to ever pass a bill without reading it first.
To do otherwise is grossly irresponsible.
Click to expand...

They do that alot...especially if there are pages and pages of the stuff in a single bill. Nancy Pelosi is the poster girl for what's wrong in Congress.
 
Jiro said:
428857_3489596407822_1508826245_33171503_824864923_n.jpg
Click to expand...

Probably the most ridiculous chart ever posted on AD. National Women's Center? Yeah that wouldn't be self serving or anything. :roll:

Breaking News: It costs more to insure a new Mercedes than it does a 20 year old Daewoo. I costs more to insure a car in some states than it does in others.

Car insurance is more expensive for 16yo boys than it is for 16yo girls. Car insurance is more expensive for people under 25. Car insurance is more expensive for people with wrecks and tickets. Car insurance is more expensive for single people than married people. Life insurance is more expensive for smokers and stuntmen than non smokers and accountants. Liability insurance is more expensive for Mining companies than it is for florists. Disability insurance is more expensive for commercial construction workers than it is for Piano teachers.
 
Grayma said:
I am a woman, and even if I trusted those graphics to be neutrally sourced, unbiased, accurate depictions (and I don't)- it would not matter to me. What I care about is whether or not the laws passed in this country are Constitutional.

If this is seen as Constitutional, then we have lost all limits on government authority, and that is far worse than paying for your own birth control.
Click to expand...

then we should abolish our social welfare programs.
 
Grayma said:
I am a woman, and even if I trusted those graphics to be neutrally sourced, unbiased, accurate depictions (and I don't)- it would not matter to me. What I care about is whether or not the laws passed in this country are Constitutional.

If this is seen as Constitutional, then we have lost all limits on government authority, and that is far worse than paying for your own birth control.
Click to expand...

Today, our justice system is more partisan activist and alternative to legislative control, especially the Congress rather than follow the US Constitution.

US Constitution has a lot of questions and they do have some limit on authority, not all of cases.

Based on my opinion, health care reform is constitutional.
 
TXgolfer said:
Probably the most ridiculous chart ever posted on AD. National Women's Center? Yeah that wouldn't be self serving or anything. :roll:

Breaking News: It costs more to insure a new Mercedes than it does a 20 year old Daewoo. I costs more to insure a car in some states than it does in others.

Car insurance is more expensive for 16yo boys than it is for 16yo girls. Car insurance is more expensive for people under 25. Car insurance is more expensive for people with wrecks and tickets. Car insurance is more expensive for single people than married people. Life insurance is more expensive for smokers and stuntmen than non smokers and accountants. Liability insurance is more expensive for Mining companies than it is for florists. Disability insurance is more expensive for commercial construction workers than it is for Piano teachers.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you about compare to other kind of insurances. I do believe that women should have equal rights as men do like pay at same insurance rate for both genders. Some states banned on discrimination for health insurance companies to make higher, different for women.
 
Jiro said:
then we should abolish our social welfare programs.
Click to expand...

Exactly, nothing violate the US Constitution, otherwise, Supreme Court may use power to strike down as misguided to the constitution.

That why I called Supreme Court as corrupted court in some cases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top