Appeals Court rules part of Obamacare unconstitutional...... (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 30, 2024, 12:29:48 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Appeals Court rules part of Obamacare unconstitutional...... (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Appeals Court rules part of Obamacare unconstitutional......  (Read 4592 times)
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,062
Greece


« on: August 12, 2011, 04:26:39 PM »

1)The mandate was upheld by the Sixth Circuit last June with a W. appointee voting for it. I don't know how some here got the idea that it's 0/2 for the Obama administration.

2)FWIW, Orin Kerr (a former Kennedy clerk) has this to say about the mandate and SCOTUS.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/affordable-care-act-predictions/

Here are my predictions on the future of the mandate litigation in the Supreme Court:

1)      Will the Court grant cert, and if so, when? 

I think they’ll probably grant cert eventually in one of the cases, but I doubt they’re in a hurry.   The lower courts are just beginning to evaluate the constitutionality of the mandate, and each new opinion is adding a fresh perspective.   The initial opinions were high on ideology but weak on analysis.   More opinions, including en banc opinions and dissents from denial of hearing, will help both the Justices and the litigants better refine their arguments.  In Supreme Court lingo, the Justices will want the issue to “percolate.” So while I think they’ll take a mandate case eventually — and they certainly will if a circuit court strikes down the mandate en banc, or with a panel that survives en banc review — I expect it will be a while.

2)       If the Supreme Court does review the constitutionality of the mandate, how will they rule?

Predicting the future is hard, but SCOTUSblog isn’t paying us the big bucks for nothing.  To make things interesting,  I’ll hazard a guess of how seven of the nine Justices will vote (assuming all nine are still on the Court when the case is heard).

Here are my guesses. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg are pretty obvious votes for the mandate, as they dissented in United States v. Lopez. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor seem like safe votes for the mandate, even if only for the reason that there is almost no opposition to the constitutionality of the mandate in the Democratic establishment from which they were appointed.  Chief Justice Roberts will likely vote to uphold the mandate given the very  expansive views of the Necessary and Proper clause that he signed on to just recently in United States v. Comstock.  I suspect Justice Kennedy will vote to uphold the mandate given his concurring opinion in United States v. Lopez.  And I’m pretty sure Justice Thomas will vote to strike down the mandate given his views of the Commerce Clause.  In contrast, I don’t have good sense of where Justices Scalia and Alito might come out.

Putting the numbers together,  I expect 6 votes for the mandate, 1 against, and 2 uncertain.   If my numbers are right, the mandate will be upheld by a vote of anywhere from 6-3 to 8-1.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,062
Greece


« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2011, 04:22:24 PM »

1)If Kagan needs to recuse herself then so does Thomas since his wife is on the payroll of a company that lobbies for the repeal of HCR.

2)Has anyone actually read the article I posted or the notion that John Roberts will probably vote to uphold the mandate is considered so common that barely anyone notices it?
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,062
Greece


« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2011, 03:48:45 AM »



What is also "common sense" is the position that once the sale of something is mandated, the providers of that something have significantly less incentive to control costs.


Wrong.  Where I live it is mandatory that every family purchase at least one car in order to get around.  Public transportation is nonexistent.  Automakers still compete on price around here.


Does the government force you to live there?  Do you have feet?

I lived in a town without a public library for 18 years.  Did the government require me to buy books?



Well, the federal government also doesn't force anyone to live in the United States. You can always go to Canada, Mexico, or even join the Amish.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,062
Greece


« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2011, 03:16:20 PM »



What is also "common sense" is the position that once the sale of something is mandated, the providers of that something have significantly less incentive to control costs.


Wrong.  Where I live it is mandatory that every family purchase at least one car in order to get around.  Public transportation is nonexistent.  Automakers still compete on price around here.


Does the government force you to live there?  Do you have feet?

I lived in a town without a public library for 18 years.  Did the government require me to buy books?



Well, the federal government also doesn't force anyone to live in the United States. You can always go to Canada, Mexico, or even join the Amish.

You can't just move to Canada if you want. They have immigration rules too, you know.

I can't imagine that Canada's immigration rules are so burdensome and strict as to discourage an American determined to immigrate there.

And there is always the last option I mentioned.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,062
Greece


« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2011, 06:28:50 PM »

Wonder how that would play out if the SCOTUS pulled an late October 2012 surprise and struck it down.

It would be seen for what it is: a blatant political ploy.

a ploy?  it's been winding it's way through the courts for the last 2 years.   It would be a disaster for Obama, for he would have ZERO "accomplishments".

A law that passed a year ago is winding it's way through the courts for two years?
Maybe it's time to put down the bible and start reading this.

Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,062
Greece


« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2011, 07:24:31 PM »

my tense was wrong, but by nov 2012, it will be 2.5 years...it will not be seen as a ploy, esp since several lower courts ruled against

And about three times more have ruled in favor of it. So my book proposition still stands for you.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 10 queries.