PDA

View Full Version : Supremes Set to Look at Barry Care



Warthogg
10-26-2011, 09:31 PM
Here we go.

Wart


Health care cases set for Nov. 10

Posted: 26 Oct 2011 08:42 AM PDT

The Supreme Court will take its first look at the challenges to the new federal health care law at its Conference on Thursday, November 10. Five of the six pending petitions (the sixth is not ready yet) were distributed to the Justices’ chambers on Wednesday, for consideration at that private session. Although a grant of review is not assured, that is highly likely, since all sides agree that the Court should take on the controversy, and the constitutionality of a key provision of the new law has been decided differently by federal appeals courts.

The first decision the Court will face in this historic dispute is whether to grant any of the petitions or any of the issues. The Justices have the discretion to grant all, some, or none, since none reached the Court as a mandatory appeal. (The filings in the cases can be found on the Court’s website, here.)

Four of the petitions were filed by challengers, and together they raise all of the key issues the Justices may want to consider as they examine the massive Affordable Care Act passed by Congress at the urging of President Obama. The fifth petition is the federal government’s, defending the constitutionality of the insurance-purchase mandate that is crucial to the overall law’s functioning. The government also is urging the Court to confine its review to only a few vital questions.

The sixth pending petition involves an attempt by the state of Virginia to get back into the constitutional fray; the Fourth Circuit Court ruled that Virginia did not have a legal right to bring its court challenge, since it could not show that the state would suffer any harm from the new insurance mandate. That petition will be ready only when the federal government files a response, which currently is due on Nov. 3. The government has not hurried its filing of a response to Virginia’s filing, as it did in most of the others.

It will be up to the Justices themselves to decide (a) which petitions, if not all of the five, should be reviewed, (b) which issues it is ready to decide, (c) how to line up the lawyers on each side of those issues, and (d) how much time to allow for oral argument. Because the five are now ready for the Court’s consideration, a grant of review soon would assure that they could be heard and decided during the current Term of the Court, which is expected to run until near the end of June. An oral argument in late March appears probable.

El Jefe
10-27-2011, 10:41 AM
Ponder how you think each one will come down on this, then consider how they got on the court.

ATAK, Inc.
10-27-2011, 10:54 AM
Ponder how you think each one will come down on this, then consider how they got on the court.


I predict a 5-4 vote, calling for the individual mandate as unconstitutional. We know who is who on the SCOTUS! Except that that douche-dyke Kagan had better recuse her liberal ass from any of these issues! So, make that a 5-3 vote!

Warthogg
10-27-2011, 11:31 AM
I predict a 5-4 vote, calling for the individual mandate as unconstitutional. We know who is who on the SCOTUS! Except that that douche-dyke Kagan had better recuse her liberal ass from any of these issues! So, make that a 5-3 vote!

Agree on the vote. Will be good theater as we watch Kagan worm and squirm.


Wart

5.56NATO
10-27-2011, 06:33 PM
Marxismo Leninismo 0bamaismo!
Viva la revolucion!

O.S.O.K.
10-27-2011, 08:41 PM
Yes, 5-4 shooting down the coverage mandate. But the bad thing is the rest of the bill will still be in place... it needs to be repealed.

Ruskiegunlover
10-27-2011, 09:04 PM
I've jeard without the mandate the entire law can be null and void.....forget the particulars, but there was a bunch on it a while back. If they declare part of it null, then I do believe it all goes.

O.S.O.K.
10-27-2011, 09:13 PM
I've jeard without the mandate the entire law can be null and void.....forget the particulars, but there was a bunch on it a while back. If they declare part of it null, then I do believe it all goes.

No, there are a ton of totally non-healthcare-related parts to the healthcare bill - all kinds of new taxes and such. It's a nightmare.

ATAK, Inc.
10-27-2011, 09:38 PM
No, there are a ton of totally non-healthcare-related parts to the healthcare bill - all kinds of new taxes and such. It's a nightmare.



I think the solution is two-fold; The SCOTUS finds the Individual Mandate to be unconstitutional. The I.M. is the vehicle to supposedly pay for the whole mess.

IIRC, unlike most Bills, this one does not have a severability clause, allowing the whole thing to be voided/repealed.












Of course, that scenario is set in the logical world, a realm never explored by Congress!:lool:

Schuetzenman
10-28-2011, 06:17 AM
Yes, 5-4 shooting down the coverage mandate. But the bad thing is the rest of the bill will still be in place... it needs to be repealed.

It is not supposed to be worked that way. If one part of the law is unconstitutional, then all of it is. You can't slice out select pieces of legislation.

Warthogg
10-28-2011, 11:41 AM
It is not supposed to be worked that way. If one part of the law is unconstitutional, then all of it is. You can't slice out select pieces of legislation.

I THINK that's right. I also THINK this legislation lacks a severability clause which would allow a part of the legislation to be found unconstitutional but would allow the other components to stand.

In their haste to shaft the citizens, Pelosi and company may have shot their feet. Pelosi did say something like.......'We'll find out what's in the legislation after it's passed...." For once Pelosi may be right.


Wart