PPACA and Scotus

[bhunter]

I just found this poll:



What's your opinion on how the SC will rule? I'm leaning towards the SC striking the monstrosity legislation down.

[merrylander]

Given the makeup of the current court, with 5 out of 9 bought and paid for, they will likely scrap the whold thing.

[Boreas]

There's no Constitutional basis for overturning the entire law (although that may not stop the Roberts Court from doing it). There may be a justification for striking down the individual mandate. I think that's what will happen. The wing nut justices will have to do something to appease the right wing fringe. Also, leaving an eviscerated (zombie) law in place will give Republican candidates something to run on.

John

[BlueStreak]

The decision is supposed to be based on constitutionality, not popularity.

Did the congress and the president have the right to pass a law requiring folks to buy health insurance?

It's already done......in Massachussetts and bears candidate Romneys signature.

If it's a violation of an American citizens individual, constitutional rights for the federal government to require me to have insurance, then how is it constitutional for the same to be done to American citizens in Massachussetts by Mitt Romney? Apparently it's constitutional when a Republican does it.

That being said, the SCOTUS is majority conservative. Therefore the constitution may very well be twisted to meet their agenda anyways. So, I kind of agree with you. It probably will be struck down.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

I wonder if the Supremes are bothering to read all 2,000+ pages?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I wonder if the Supremes are bothering to read all 2,000+ pages?

Who said they can read? Some of their rulings indicate otherwise.

[piece-itpete]

Agreed on Constitutionality.

The Feds have different constitutional issues than States. MA might allow it, but it might be different at the Federal level.

Pete

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

The decision is supposed to be based on constitutionality, not popularity.

Did the congress and the president have the right to pass a law requiring folks to buy health insurance?

It's already done......in Massachussetts and bears candidate Romneys signature.

If it's a violation of an American citizens individual, constitutional rights for the federal government to require me to have insurance, then how is it constitutional for the same to be done to American citizens in Massachussetts by Mitt Romney? Apparently it's constitutional when a Republican does it.

That being said, the SCOTUS is majority conservative. Therefore the constitution may very well be twisted to meet their agenda anyways. So, I kind of agree with you. It probably will be struck down.

Dave

The scope is entirely different wrt states and the federal government. Keep in mind that The Constitution is a limiting document. I suspect that a universal care law could be passed and withstand attacks, however, I'm also quite certain that the politcal will is not there to effectively pass such legislation; hence, the reality of making the system we have better by allowing more competition and reducing the micromanaging emanating from government.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Did the congress and the president have the right to pass a law requiring folks to buy health insurance?

What's the stipulation allowing Selective Service and/or taxation?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

The Feds have different constitutional issues than States. MA might allow it, but it might be different at the Federal level.

Pete

No, states have a certain amount of latitude in the laws they enact but they can't pass a law which violates the Constitution, which enshrines the rights of all Citizens. If Obama Care goes then I think Romney Care will have to go too. Any opinion from the SCOTUS that tries to thread a path between tossing out the Affordable Care Act and maintaining the Massachusetts law won't pass the smell test.

John