« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

ObamaCare WILL Pass at least 5:4 in the Supreme Court

By: grumpyKoz (Diary)  |  March 28th, 2012 at 09:16 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This is a simple, and most obvious conclusion.
The questioning yesterday was not defining that a mandate for
healthcare would be unconstitutional.
NOPE,
The questioning was to identify that a mandate on other issues,
Cars, Cell Phones, Food IS unconstitutional.

Add this to the expected outcome of today’s presentations of Severability,
which most likely will stand as All or Nothing, and you will find
the answer is clear.

The Supreme Justices will, as a majority, declare that, with respect
to Health Care, the mandate is allowable by The Constitution, and
ObamaCare will stand as is.
They will also present the opinion that in no other aspects of Governing
the minions of the U.S. of A., is The Government allowed to demand
entrance into commerce just because a person exists.

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • gekster

    What part of the constitution lets the Government make you “buy” something.
    Just what words or phrases alows that particular dictate.

    • lapert

      With all due respect, that ship long ago sailed. No one argued yesterday that there are no circumstances in which the government can’t force you to buy something (buying seatblets or a muffler if you choose to buy a car was one example used). The only question is what is the limit of that, can they force you to participate in a market in which you choose not to participate – and this is why it will ultimately come down to how they define the market in question.

      My sense is Kennedy and Roberts want to find a limit that includes healthcare and excludes most everything else. And these are the kinds of situations where justices tend to find what they are looking for and bad law is the result.

      • APA Guy

        Kennedy and Roberts are smacking this mandate with a tuna. They know better than anyone what the sort of ruling you are suggesting means for government control over commerce in this country moving forward.

        • lapert

          If you didn’t hear them asking for the limiting principle that will allow them to vote in favor than I don’t know what you were listening to. That the solicitor general did a poor job in providing one isn’t really the point – the other Justices will take up that role over the next few months.

          What I most heard in Kennedy’s last ‘question’ was that he wants to allow congress to provide a solution to the ‘healthcare problem’. What I have seen in SC cases over time is when the justice wants to find a justification for the ends they will find it.

      • richmccreedy

        You totally glossed over the most important part of your post which reads “buying seatbelts or a muffler IF YOU CHOOSE TO BUY A CAR.”

        Forget whether or not the Government should actually have that power under the Constitution. In the scenario you’ve provided, an individual has already decided to enter into commerce and, of their own free will, is purchasing a car. At no point did the government require you to go and purchase a car via threat of a penalty. The individual has decided to enter the market-place on his own and at that point, the government can regulate it via the commerce clause.

        In the instant case, the individual has made no effort to enter the market-place. In fact, the reason he is being penalized is because of his refusal to engage in commerce. No Supreme Court ruling has ever said the government can first compel a person to enter the market-place, and then regulate that person.

        Also, not sure why people think Roberts is going to come down the other way. Nearly all of his questioning has been aimed at asking the government to actually give a limit, and the government has failed to do so. Roberts is simply pointing out the weakness of their position, not staking out his own ground.

        • lapert

          Isn’t the seatbelt market distinct from the automobile market – I mean I could purchase a car without a seatbelt if the government didn’t force me into the seatbelt market.

          Of course my entry into the car market is voluntary so maybe since I have entered a related market place voluntarily they can force me to engage in the seatbelt market – which is why I think the question they will focus on is whether one enters the health care market voluntarily by being in a society where emergency care is given whether they can afford it or not.

          As for Roberts, I don’t think he is simply pointing out the weakness of their position – what I heard is him looking, wanting, to find a workable limit. And while he may not have been convinced in oral arguments of one, I think he is susceptible to being convinced of one during deliberations.

          • richmccreedy

            The government is regulating the individual in the instant case.

            In the case you give, the government is never forcing you to buy a car or a seatbelt. They are telling the car companies, after the car companies have chosen to cars, to put seatbelts on their cars. And then you, the individual, decide to get up and buy that car. At no point did the government force you to buy the car. They didn’t even force you to buy the seatbelt. They forced the car company, who was engaged in the business of selling cars, to put the seatbelt on the car.

            And even if we say the seatbelt market is distinct, you are still never being forced upon payment of a penalty to go out and actively buy seatbelts. Ever. You choose to do that and if you do not do that, you are not penalized. You are only penalized once you actually, of your own free will, enter the market and purchase a car w/o a seatbelt. But, again, you’ve already ACTUALLY entered the market.

            Now, I’m not sure how we can honestly say that one enters the health-care market by not entering the health-care market. I know your argument is that society forces emergency care to be given for free, but that still, in no way means I’ve voluntarily entered the market. I enter the market when I go to the emergency room, just as I do when I got the buy the care. And it’s at that poin the government can choose to regulate my actions. And if the government so chooses to force me to buy health insurance once I’ve actually ended up in the emergency room (with no way to pay, because I’m assuming the free-rider is the real problem here), then they can force me to buy insurance. Or, they could force me to buy insurance upon arriving at the hospital, or turn me away if I don’t. Or any number of things that force me to purchase insurance AFTER I’ve voluntarily entered the market.

            But they didn’t do that here. They chose to force you enter a market that you are not actively engaged in. This is fundamentally different than regulating that you do a certain something (like have a seatbelt) only after entering the market in the first-place.

            And, we will agree to disagree about Roberts, because when I listen to his questioning I hear a man who is simply trying to see if the Govt. has ANY answer to the basic question of “if you can do this, what can’t you do.” Not because he hopes to write an opinion with that answer, but because he realizes there really isn’t an answer and he simply wants to point that out.

          • richmccreedy

            Just to continue a little bit, the government forcing you to enter the car insurance market (let’s go there since, as opposed to the seatbelt market, they are forcing the consumer, not the company, to do something) is something that happens only after you’ve bought a car (entered into commerce). Now, your argument is that you never wanted to enter into the car insurane market and the govenrment has now forced you to, and this is true.

            But nonetheless, it’s still vastly different than the case at hand. Again, the government at no point up and forced you to buy car insurance when you never planned on entering the car market. Likewise, the government shouldn’t be able to force you to buy health insurance when you never plan on entering the health-services market.

            Sure, like the car market they can force you to buy car insurance after you’ve decided to buy a car (and then subsquently drive that car), but up and until that point, they cannot do so. Likewise, up and until the point you actually enter the health-care market (not the insurance market) they have no business nor power to tell you to enter the insurance market.

            And if the distinction to be made is that of inevitability, that everyone will one day enter the health-care market and therefore in some way effect the health-insurance market, one can make that same claim for a vast number of markets. The food market immediately comes to mind, because a person is far more likely to enter into it than the health-care market.

          • lapert

            Is there an analogy to the individual mandate that you could conceive of as a replacement for food stamps? I don’t know, might be.

            But a further distinction with the health care market is not just the inevitability of participation, but the obligation to provide service even when ability to pay doesn’t exist. The healthcare market has been viewed (and viewed itself) differently than other markets for goods and services going back to the Greeks. So it may be the case that even if other markets are similar in their inevitable participation they are still different in the nature of interest government has to ensure funding exists – and thus requiring future participants to fund through an insurance process rather than at point of service may be an appropriate method in this unique situation.

    • rednation

      However one should not kid themselves about the odds here of it holding up against all logic. The court has made rulings that are impossible before, sadly.

      The trend is depressingly clear with respect to the willingness of the SCOTUS to agree with absurd laws.

      I explore the constitutional aspects in this Diary post:

      http://www.redstate.com/rednation/2012/03/29/why-obamacare-cannot-possibly-be-constitutional/

  • Pingback: Nick Carnes

  • Pingback: Hien Jou

  • Pingback: Gilberto Curcuru

  • Pingback: Auto Forum

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Investment House

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: darmowa strona randki

  • Pingback: distilling equipment

  • Pingback: βελτιστοποίηση ιστοσελίδων

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: darmowa strona randki

  • Pingback: randki

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: portal randkowy za darmo

  • Pingback: whisky wine

  • Pingback: vasche prezzi

  • Pingback: Christmas idea

  • Pingback: PC

  • Pingback: Click To Find Out More

  • Pingback: Hop Over To These Guys

  • Pingback: Check This Site Out

  • Pingback: breast active program

  • Pingback: karos registraciya

  • Pingback: madamlux

  • Pingback: work from home uk

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Kaylee Chaidez

  • Pingback: Johnny Bobeck

  • Pingback: Julie Leiendecker

  • Pingback: Union Flooring Installations

  • Pingback: aloe vera juice for hair

  • Pingback: Augusta Nabers

  • Pingback: wzór cv

  • Pingback: wzór cv

  • Pingback: Shellie Spitler

  • Pingback: raspberry ketones benefits

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: green coffee extract

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: find address from phone number

  • Pingback: uniform manufacturer

  • Pingback: หอพักโชคชัย 4

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: payday loan stores near portsmouth va

  • Pingback: payday advance store locations

  • Pingback: Scooters

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: portal randkowy

  • APA Guy

    Because the Supreme Court stomps down the mandate per learned, constitutional arguments and provides well-placed examples, they will allow ONLY Obamacare mandates to stand? Only lefty loosies assert such convoluted nonsense, but feel free to wish upon a star…rainbow pony in hand if it suits you.

    This is worse than the slippery slope…it’s an ice-covered nightmare. The justices who have regard for constitutionality – Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy – will overturn this monstrosity…and don’t be surprised if Breyer joins them based on what I heard from him during the past two days.

  • funwithknives

    named “Santelli” let loose verbally, and Unintended Consequences took hold. In a fashion not seen for a good long while.
    This was in response to the proposals and legislation that had just begun to be broached and enacted.
    Now we have the reality and a possible outcome the Dairist advances as “here and now.”

    Is it beyond the realm of fantasy that *The TEA Parties, Edition 2.0* would commence? On the next day after? Would The Voter Incentive we all want , finally get here ?

    Once again, Unintended Consequences would be in play, and the uphill climb would begin…….
    Only now with vastly increased numbers and an ongoing goal to achieve.

    {Hey A guy can Hope, can’t he…?}