Justice Kennedy: Individual Mandate Fundamentally Changes Relationship of Govt.

[Dusty]

Americans are generally "slipping back into an authoritarian moral mode", and if this thing goes right, it could be the turning point for getting sanity back into our Government.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...p_of_govt.html

Click for vid.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: The key in Lochner is that we were talking about regulation of the States, right, and the States are not limited to enumerated powers. The Federal Government is. And it seems to me it's an entirely different question when you ask yourself whether or not there are going to be limits in the Federal power, as opposed to limits on the States, which was the issue in Lochner.

SOLICITOR GENERAL VERRILLI: I agree, except, Mr. Chief Justice, that what the Court has said as I read the Court's cases is that the way in which you ensure that the Federal Government stays in its sphere and the sphere reserved for the States is protected is by policing the boundary: Is the national government regulating economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce?

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.

[BOfH]

An interesting opinion piece from the DailyCaller with regards to ObamaCare, and why you would want it upheld.

If the court upholds the constitutionality of the individual mandate in June, conservatives and libertarians will loudly and justifiably protest the result. This anger, however, will lead many of them to explore alternatives in pursuit of upholding the Constitution and fighting the federal government. In that endeavor, they might soon learn that there are other effective ways to challenge the federal government’s encroachment upon the powers of the people.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/wh...old-obamacare/

MOO: The monies provided for social programs have essentially strangled the 10th amendment with the implied "if you don't do X we won't provide money for Y" arm twisting of the states by the government. So while not explicitly encroaching on states rights, the Feds, through funding which many states have come to rely on and include de facto in the state budget, and programs which most people take for granted, have essentially free reign in most state's politics. Another thought to ponder: A decent chunk of Federal taxes[1] goes to these programs, with some of the money ultimately going back to the states in the form of said funding. With a high Federal tax rate, even the most liberal states(well except maybe CA and NY ) are loath to raise taxes to a point where all of the tax payers flee en-mass. This vicious cycle only increases the state's dependency on Federal funding, more so as these social programs are pushed by liberal state and federal governments. The point is, the states need that straw that broke the camels back in order to get off Uncle O's Kool-aid for once and for all. Turn these programs over to the individual states and leave the Federal government out of it. Ultimately, drawing these programs down except for those that truly need it, will be the real answer, but I don't see that happening in my lifetime...

My .002


[1] http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by BOfH

...funding which many states have come to rely on and include de facto in the state budget, and programs which most people take for granted, have essentially free reign in most state's politics.

The states have themselves to blame; look at the heat a state takes (pick a program) when it correctly ponies up & says, "we don't want to play because of the strings attached."

Originally Posted by BOfH

This vicious cycle only increases the state's dependency on Federal funding, more so as these social programs are pushed by liberal state and federal governments.

Precisely; we are seeing that in Wisconsin RIGHT NOW on a smaller level. Those municipalities who are looking at not being tied to the noose of a monopolistic health insurer for teachers and see opportunity are seeing surpluses, no layoffs, and no crocodile tears about wanting to increase property taxes - even though their officials ran on the opposite. Life is better; they were liberated, quite literally.

Those still whining who, only 1 year hence, want a mulligan and support the recall of the current Governor have simply not gotten past their hysteria, OR, they will never change because they are tied to the HUGE sums of money that came with being part of that extortionist insurer of the High Church of Academia.

It is about being weaned off the teat.

[Mr Furious]

Day three is in the books. For anyone that cares to read them, you can find the transcripts of the SCOTUS sessions at this link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...anscripts.aspx

I’ve read through them so I can compare with what the MSM is spinning. The subject is near and dear for me. Our company as a small business belongs to NFIB and supports them. I don't agree with every position they take, but 95% of what they do aligns with our needs. I think they did a good job, and now it’s in the hands of those who will decide its fate.

For Obamacare hit the links on that page for (3-26 through 3-28): 11-398-Monday, 11-398-Tuesday, 11-393, and 11-400.

also since you happen to be there, and if interested, for Stolen Valor (2-22): 11-210.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Mr Furious

Day three is in the books. For anyone that cares to read them, you can find the transcripts of the SCOTUS sessions at this link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...anscripts.aspx

I’ve read through them so I can compare with what the MSM is spinning.

SCOTUS Poised to Strike Down Healthcare Law

Here's the gist of the Obamacare BS:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,2058481.story

The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

An Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be "extraordinary" for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents' insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, "2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls," said Edwin Kneedler.

The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.

But the court's conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.

The justices are scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to debate the law's Medicaid expansion.

Snip

[SF-TX]

Justice Scalia invokes the 8th Amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment when commenting on whether or not the SCOTUS would have to read the entire 2700 pages of Obamacare.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?

Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

MR. KNEEDLER: Well -

Link

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by SF-TX

Justice Scalia invokes the 8th Amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment when commenting on whether or not the SCOTUS would have to read the entire 2700 pages of Obamacare.

Congress didn't.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Congress didn't.

The only people who have read that shit are the marxists who wrote it.

It's just a preface to the single-payer bill, anyway. Many will read that piece of work, believe me.

[tonyz]

Nancy Pelosi's evil twin says you have to render that 2,700 page POS unconstitutional in order to find out what's in it.

[tonyz]

An opinion piece that seems to view the Supreme Court's role in context.

MARCH 30, 2012 12:00 A.M.
Conservative Interpretations
It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to design our health-care system.

By Jonah Goldberg
NRO

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg likes the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and other ingredients of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare.” Why, she asked toward the end of three days of hearings, shouldn’t the court keep the good stuff in Obamacare and just dump the unconstitutional bits?

The court, she explained, is presented with “a choice between a wrecking operation or a salvage job. And the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything.”

“Conservative” is a funny word. It can mean lots of different things. It reminds me of that line from G. K. Chesterton about the word “good.” “The word ‘good’ has many meanings,” he observed. “For example, if a man were to shoot his grandmother at a range of 500 yards, I should call him a good shot, but not necessarily a good man.”

Conservative can mean cautious in temperament — a man who wears belts and suspenders. Similarly, it sometimes suggests someone who’s averse to change. It can also refer to the political ideology or philosophy founded by Edmund Burke and popularized and Americanized by people like Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, and George Will. Things can get complicated because these different meanings can overlap. Many strident liberals can have conservative temperaments, and many philosophical conservatives can have private lives that make a brothel during Fleet Week seem like a retirement-home chess club. Conservatives in America love the free market, which is the greatest source of change in human history. Liberals, alleged lovers of change and “progress,” often champion an agenda dedicated to preserving the past. Just consider how much of the Democratic party’s rhetoric is dedicated to preserving a policy regime implemented by Franklin Roosevelt nearly 80 years ago.

You can also be conservative with respect to a given institution while being un-conservative in every other respect. The most ardent Communists in the Chinese or Cuban politburos are often described as “conservatives.” The same holds true for every left-wing institution in America: Someone has to be the “conservative” at PETA or Planned Parenthood — i.e., the person who is risk-averse when it comes to scarce resources or the group’s reputation.

Anyway, sometimes people like to play games with the indeterminacy of the word “conservative” in order to sell a liberal agenda (and in fairness, conservatives often do the same thing with “progressive”).

Which brings us back to Justice Ginsburg. She would have people believe that if the Court rules the individual mandate unconstitutional, the conservative thing to do would be to preserve the rest of Obamacare. She suggests that “wrecking” the whole thing would be an act of judicial activism, while “salvaging” it would be an act of conservation.

In other words, she’s playing games with the word. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a conservative institution in that it serves as a backstop for the excesses of the other branches. Political conservatives, by extension, argue that the court should defer to Congress, the most democratic branch, when constitutional issues are not at stake. Hence, liberals contend, a “conservative” court should take a scalpel to Obamacare, not an axe.

It sounds reasonable, but it isn’t. As Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Roberts noted, if the court simply removes the requirement that everyone buy health insurance, they are left with the task of essentially rewriting the act. That prospect caused Justice Scalia to exclaim, “What happened to the Eighth Amendment [barring cruel and unusual punishment]? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?*.*.*.*Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?”

The conservative thing to do — and I don’t mean politically conservative — is to send the whole thing back to Congress and have it done right. Leaving aside the fact that Obamacare largely falls apart if you remove the mandate, it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to design our health-care system from the scraps Congress dumps in its lap. What Ginsburg proposes is akin to a student handing in a sloppy, error-filled term paper, and the professor rewriting it so as to give the student an A.

Some liberals note that one option Congress could pursue would be to pass a far more left-wing piece of legislation that mandates a single-payer system, i.e., socialized medicine. That would — or at least could — be constitutional. And that’s true: Congress could do that, and I’m sure Justice Ginsburg would be pleased if it did.

And if that happened, the right and conservative thing for the court to do would be to let it happen.


http://www.nationalreview.com/author/56454/latest

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by tonyz

An opinion piece that seems to view the Supreme Court's role in context.

Too bad half the SCOTUS doesn't look at it that way. How comforting to know that we have a couple maroons on the bench that think the Constitution is invalid.

"We're just throwing a boatload of money at the states to give to poor people for health care."

[bubba]

Does that woman (Ginsburg) even hear what she just said?

I mean really, she says that parts of the bill are unconstitutional and then won't vote to get rid of it?

"Really sonny, your speedometer said 120, and you knew that the limit was 75, but you weren't really breaking the law?" WTF over?

[Gypsy]

I'm annoyed we have to wait until June for their decision. They voted, let's have the judgement already.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Gypsy

I'm annoyed we have to wait until June for their decision. They voted, let's have the judgement already.

Ditto.

Why is that, anyway? I never bothered to research it.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Ditto.

Why is that, anyway? I never bothered to research it.

They must have time to write the opinions. Considering there is nearly 3000 pages of junk, I am surprised it will happen as soon as June.