BREAKING: Parts of healthcare law ruled unconstitutional

[PokerGuy]

This will end up being reviewed by the SCOTUS, hopefully sanity will prevail and it will get tossed. Then we can start working on something useful instead of this trash.

 

[theeedude]

To my understanding, if the ruling stands the entire bill will be scrapped. If congress can come up with something better, yay.

Did you read the ruling? It severs the individual mandate provision from the law and applies only to it and related provisions. The rest of the law would stand if this ruling is upheld.

 

[OutHouse]

Finally some common sense.

How could requiring every man and woman in the country to buy a commercial product from a private company for the condition of living in this country be constitutional ?

the same way they make you buy auto insurance.

 

[spidey07]

the same way they make you buy auto insurance.

You are not forced to buy auto insurance. This has been beaten to death in this very thread. It's not even anywhere near the same.

A STATE may require you to have auto insurance to drive on public roads. You can drive all you want off public roads without insurance.

 

[piasabird]

I never voted for starting social security! The government took my money by force. Abuse of government Power.

If I die before retirement age I will be left with nothing to show for it for an illegal tax.

 

[spidey07]

I never voted for starting social security! The government took my money by force. Abuse of government Power.

If I die before retirement age I will be left with nothing to show for it for an illegal tax.

Your spouse or children get the money.

 

[piasabird]

Auto Insurance is for legal liability for damages when you get into an accident. It is also a State Mandate.

 

[piasabird]

This is a silly twist on the argument, however; what if I die before I reach retirement age and I am single or gay/lesbian or I am divorced and dont want my spouse to receive it? That means a paid into a system and I got nothing to show for it. SS is a big ripoff.

 

[xenolith]

You are not forced to buy auto insurance. This has been beaten to death in this very thread. It's not even anywhere near the same.

A STATE may require you to have auto insurance to drive on public roads. You can drive all you want off public roads without insurance.

Or not own a car at all... no auto insurance needed. Also, because it is state law, you HAD the freedom to move to a state that didn't force you to buy auto insurance. Notice I said "had", because now all states have since passed an auto insurance mandate. But you still have different state minimums affecting premium costs.

This is the federal government infringing on state sovereignty by forcing everyone in every state to buy something. This is plainly unconstitutional, whether the federal government deems it is for public safety or not.

It's a slippery slope. Who now deems what is for public safety? The FDA? The Homeland Security Department? hahahaha... yeah, we all know what a great job they're doing...

What will stop the federal government from legislating HFCS as a public safety hazard and then ban all soft drinks or juices with HFCS? How about deep fried chicken? banned. How about jelly doughnuts, ice cream, or white dough pizza? Banned, banned, and banned!

Didn't we just have an election that showed the American people want LESS government intrusion in our lives?!

 

[fskimospy]

Or not own a car at all... no auto insurance needed. Also, because it is state law, you HAD the freedom to move to a state that didn't force you to buy auto insurance. Notice I said "had", because now all states have since passed an auto insurance mandate. But you still have different state minimums affecting premium costs.

This is the federal government infringing on state sovereignty by forcing everyone in every state to buy something. This is plainly unconstitutional, whether the federal government deems it is for public safety or not.

It's a slippery slope. Who now deems what is for public safety? The FDA? The Homeland Security Department? hahahaha... yeah, we all know what a great job they're doing...

What will stop the federal government from legislating HFCS as a public safety hazard and then ban all soft drinks or juices with HFCS? How about deep fried chicken? banned. How about jelly doughnuts, ice cream, or white dough pizza? Banned, banned, and banned!

Didn't we just have an election that showed the American people want LESS government intrusion in our lives?!

Why would this last election matter? By that logic, this bill was passed after an election where people said they wanted universal health care.

If it is so 'plainly' unconstitutional, can you explain the widespread criticism of this judge's reasoning from both the left and the right, along with the other federal judges who ruled it WAS constitutional?

 

[xenolith]

Why would this last election matter? By that logic, this bill was passed after an election where people said they wanted universal health care.

If it is so 'plainly' unconstitutional, can you explain the widespread criticism of this judge's reasoning from both the left and the right, along with the other federal judges who ruled it WAS constitutional?

That's like asking me to explain the reasoning why someone does anything at all. Who knows? We all have our own motives.

 

[fskimospy]

That's like asking me to explain the reasoning why someone does anything at all. Who knows? We all have our own motives.

Do you think that a reason might be that the law isn't as plainly unconstitutional as you say it is?

 

[xenolith]

Do you think that a reason might be that the law isn't as plainly unconstitutional as you say it is?

I'm willing to let the supreme court decide that in the end.

In my opinion, it is plainly unconstitutional.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Activist judges!


Ahahahahahahahahahahaha.

 

[werepossum]

Where there is power to oppress there is no immunity. That does not mean those who oppose evil should be punished, rather those who support it ought to be removed. They have violated the trust of the people who elected them.

Let's see what you supported if you had been born in other times in this nation, and yes promoting law and regulation over all else is supporting.

There's the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, where you would have turned in people who aided slaves escaping.

Then there were the Jim Crows you would have to throw your weight behind. Damn those "euphemism for black people" who don't want to sit in the back of the bus. It's the law made by democratically elected representatives.

You would have supported the death penalty for gays. Hey they knew they were breaking the law. That's all on them.

You support the imprisonment of people who smoke marijuana.

You think MLK should have been thrown in jail.

The US is an invalid country because we broke laws to form it. What we did was not legal when we were under British rule. The Founders should have been hanged. That was the penalty for treason.

Dred Scott should have been returned to his master. He wasn't human, merely property.


Of course you could take the complete opposite view. It depends on what your elected officials tell you to think by the regulations they write.

All evils excused.

Bloody brilliant, thanks!

 

[Double Trouble]

Where there is power to oppress there is no immunity. That does not mean those who oppose evil should be punished, rather those who support it ought to be removed. They have violated the trust of the people who elected them.

Let's see what you supported if you had been born in other times in this nation, and yes promoting law and regulation over all else is supporting.

There's the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, where you would have turned in people who aided slaves escaping.

Then there were the Jim Crows you would have to throw your weight behind. Damn those "euphemism for black people" who don't want to sit in the back of the bus. It's the law made by democratically elected representatives.

You would have supported the death penalty for gays. Hey they knew they were breaking the law. That's all on them.

You support the imprisonment of people who smoke marijuana.

You think MLK should have been thrown in jail.

The US is an invalid country because we broke laws to form it. What we did was not legal when we were under British rule. The Founders should have been hanged. That was the penalty for treason.

Dred Scott should have been returned to his master. He wasn't human, merely property.


Of course you could take the complete opposite view. It depends on what your elected officials tell you to think by the regulations they write.

All evils excused.

Damn, that's right on the money :thumbsup:

 

[Double Trouble]

This is scotus-bound, in the end it's going to be decided there. In the meantime though, while I agree with the ruling of the judge in terms of the constitutionality of compelling people to buy a private commercial product, does anyone else get the feeling this is just another step in politicizing the judicial branch? Every ruling nowadays is evaluated by checking to see if the judge is a republican or democrat. This doesn't bode well for our country.

 

[charrison]

Did you read the ruling? It severs the individual mandate provision from the law and applies only to it and related provisions. The rest of the law would stand if this ruling is upheld.

Well there is no severability clause in the bill, so that seems up for debate.

 

[umbrella39]

You are not forced to buy auto insurance. This has been beaten to death in this very thread. It's not even anywhere near the same.

A STATE may require you to have auto insurance to drive on public roads. You can drive all you want off public roads without insurance.

...and hospitals can hang big signs on their doors that say no insurance, no bother coming in.

You can be as unhealthy as you want driving off those public roads without insurance. Get hurt and have to use a public road to come to a hospital, you'd better have insurance, both auto and health.

Are you opponents of health care OK with no longer mandating hospitals care for people who have no insurance?

 

[thraashman]

This is scotus-bound, in the end it's going to be decided there. In the meantime though, while I agree with the ruling of the judge in terms of the constitutionality of compelling people to buy a private commercial product, does anyone else get the feeling this is just another step in politicizing the judicial branch? Every ruling nowadays is evaluated by checking to see if the judge is a republican or democrat. This doesn't bode well for our country.

Right now you also have the problem of the phrase "activist judge". This is something I've seen only being used by conservatives. If a judge sends down a ruling that a conservative doesn't agree with that invalidates a law, he'll complain about the "activist judge" and "legislating from the bench". Go find a thread about the ruling on DADT for examples. However, if a judge invalidates a law that a conservative DOES agree with, he'll say that the judge was "upholding the Constitution". Most liberals I've seen will never use the argument of judicial activism or legislating from the bench, we'll simply agree or disagree with the ruling.

It seems to be that due to conservatives mentality, liberal judges who aren't that far from center end up being polarizing. Which is seen even more from how Obama and Bush W each appointed 2 SC justices. Obama's appointees were both pretty moderate women. Bush's appointees were both fairly right to far right white men. Yet there was giant outcry from conservatives because Obama's appointees weren't crazy, Yosemite Sam far right types.

 

[Fern]

I understand about 20 lawsuits have been filed about HC reform.

This was just the 3rd.

We've still got about 17 left. I'm hearing the SCOTUS is unlikely to take this up until the remaining 17 are finished.

Fern

 

[boomerang]

I understand about 20 lawsuits have been filed about HC reform.

This was just the 3rd.

We've still got about 17 left. I'm hearing the SCOTUS is unlikely to take this up until the remaining 17 are finished.

Fern

Exactly right. All this anxiety and bickering in this thread on an issue that will most likely not be resolved until late 2012.

The case that will determine whether the SCOTUS hears it, although it is a foregone conclusion, is coming up next month in Florida. Regardless of the outcome in Florida, the SCOTUS will have the final say. Either side will appeal if they lose in the Florida case.

Regardless, the bill was poorly written and will not stand up to the scrutiny of the courts. However, if Obama can appoint one more member to the Supreme Court it could end up as the law of the land. If it's presented to the court as it now stands, it's toast.

If this becomes law, as it's currently written, the government will have supreme power over all that we do. The door will be opened for complete control of the people by their masters. The Road to Serfdom will not be just a book. We'll be living it.

 

[jhbball]

Exactly right. All this anxiety and bickering in this thread on an issue that will most likely not be resolved until late 2012.

The case that will determine whether the SCOTUS hears it, although it is a foregone conclusion, is coming up next month in Florida. Regardless of the outcome in Florida, the SCOTUS will have the final say. Either side will appeal if they lose in the Florida case.

Regardless, the bill was poorly written and will not stand up to the scrutiny of the courts. However, if Obama can appoint one more member to the Supreme Court it could end up as the law of the land. If it's presented to the court as it now stands, it's toast.

If this becomes law, as it's currently written, the government will have supreme power over all that we do. The Road to Serfdom will not be just a book. We'll be living it.

Yeah. Serfdom. Uh huh.

 

[theeedude]

Well there is no severability clause in the bill, so that seems up for debate.

Well, a partisan Republican judge decided it was separable.

 

[boomerang]

Yeah. Serfdom. Uh huh.

Don't think in the present. Think ahead. It's one of the precursors to success.