Justice Kennedy: Individual Mandate Fundamentally Changes Relationship of Govt.

[Mr Furious]

Just wow. Here’s a blast from the past...from the Clinton/Obama debate. In particular view - (0:45-1:35 5:15-6:15 8:34-8:51)

So it wasn’t really Obamacare after all, and he didn't want to impose the individual mandate because he knew better.

http://tinyurl.com/cl6soo7

[plato]

Originally Posted by tonyz

What is most likely going behind the scenes is some horse trading for votes and what is and what is not to be included in the written decision itself.

I'm not an attorney, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn, but.......

I have had various reasons to read legal decisions, with a need to understand them. The major portion of the effort *seems* to be in the words that will follow "because......"

Those words will tell future lawmakers what similar laws and actions have a passing chance of being upheld by the court, and what falls into the "don't even try...." category. That can preclude a lot of wasted time in the future for lawmakers and judges alike.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by plato

I'm not an attorney, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn, but.......

I have had various reasons to read legal decisions, with a need to understand them. The major portion of the effort *seems* to be in the words that will follow "because......"

Those words will tell future lawmakers what similar laws and actions have a passing chance of being upheld by the court, and what falls into the "don't even try...." category. That can preclude a lot of wasted time in the future for lawmakers and judges alike.

Spot on.

This decision has the potential to be one of the more important decisions issued in recent memory regarding limited government and how far the federal government can reach into the private lives of the citizenry.

What is stated in the body of this decision - and what is not stated - will potentially be with us for generations.

May God grant these justices the wisdom to make the right call and to articulate their decision in a manner that serves us well as a country.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...5tX4fY.twitter

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by WCH

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...5tX4fY.twitter

Here's why that BS won't fly (or shouldn't).

From your link:

"One could argue that the laws for seamen and ship owners mandated purchases from people who were already engaged in some commerce..."

F.cking A Skip you could argue that point.

[tonyz]

Einer Elhauge is a professor at Harvard Law School. He joined an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of the mandate.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/elhauge/cv.php

EMPLOYMENT

Petrie Professor of Law, Harvard University

Subjects: Antitrust, Contracts, Health Law Policy, Statutory Interpretation.

Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics.

Chair, Obama Campaign’s Antitrust Advisory Committee

Co-Chair, Obama Campaign’s Blogs and Op-eds Committee

Member, Obama Campaign’s Health Policy Advisory Committees.

Member, Advisory Board for the Journal of Competition Law & Economics.

Member, Advisory Board for the Social Sciences Research Network on Antitrust Law & Policy.

Member, Advisory Board for the Social Sciences Research Network on Telecommunications & Regulated
Industries.