Breaking: SCOTUS to review ObamaCare, individual mandate this term; Update: The three questions
posted at 10:27 am on November 14, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
The Republican debates probably won’t have as much impact on the 2012 presidential race as the debates between the Supreme Court’s conservative and liberal wings, presumably moderated by — and conducted on behalf of — Justice Anthony Kennedy. The nation’s highest court has decided to tackle ObamaCare in this term, which means that they will drop a decision on Barack Obama and the nation just as the two parties prepare for their national conventions.
Thus far, all we know is that the court will hear arguments in the early spring of late March. What happens with the decision will rest in large part on which case leads the appeal they will decide. ObamaCare foes would probably prefer the devastating decision from the Florida court that threw out the entire law, rather than the DC Appellate Court decision by “conservative judicial icon” Laurence Silberman that upheld it. Most likely this cert came from the June filing that challenged the 11th Circuit’s ruling that upheld the Florida decision, a request that the Obama DoJ might be regretting after winning the last round in the DC appellate circuit. It probably doesn’t make too much difference, anyway, as the court will probably move to consolidate the various appeals.
The timing is highly consequential. It means that Obama almost certainly won’t get a chance to name a new court member before the Supremes decide whether the Commerce Clause is an opening through which Congress can force any kind of regulation and mandate. If they end up supporting ObamaCare, Barack Obama will claim vindication for the next few months of the campaign for his re-election bid. If they strike it down, Obama loses his signature achievement and has to explain that for the next few months leading up to the election — and explaining is not winning.
Update: National Journal reports that the Supreme Court has requested that both sides address three questions in their submissions: the individual mandate, severability, and jurisdiction. This looks promising for opponents on first blush, as it focuses on just how much of the law a negative ruling would invalidate, and under what circumstances. The 11th Circuit ruled that the individual mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law. Jurisdiction refers to standing in a suit against a law that has yet to take effect.
Breaking on Hot Air
Report: Oversight on IRS targeting came from Washington all along
DOJ seized logs for five Fox News phones, possibly James Rosens’ parents’ house
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
And if the Surpremes come out with their typical sorta-kinda-opinion with 4 1/2 thumbs up and 4 1/2 thumbs down?
Limerick on November 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM
The events haven’t even played out yet you are already overcome with euphoric glee that America is going to burn. Don’t forget to send us the picture of you hacking off your nose to spite America.
csdeven on November 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM
That is what I was wondering about. Still, I think the issue is so toxic that the court will find a way to benefit both sides one way or the other.
csdeven on November 14, 2011 at 11:16 AM
I’m confused. Do you mean this, or did you forget your snark tag?
Just wondering ’cause I’m in Ohio and I voted for Issue 3. Are we really going to be free from the consequences of a Federal health mandate?
GrannyDee on November 14, 2011 at 11:17 AM
This may open the Commerce Clause to mischief and abuses of which nightmares are made.
bloviator on November 14, 2011 at 11:18 AM
They want to be briefed on jurisdiction? Are they kidding? They can’t weasel their way out of a decision on the merits forever. Punt on the jurisdiction issue and the case will just be back in the next term, and meanwhile billions more tax dollars will have been spent implementing this POS law. Justices, put on your big-boy pants and do what the constitution requires: strike it down, in its entirety.
AZCoyote on November 14, 2011 at 11:18 AM
They’ll split the baby in 1/2.
Mandate stands. But only applies to people whose last names start with A-F.
Boom, everyone’s happy and angry at the same time.
angryed on November 14, 2011 at 11:18 AM
This.
God, that would piss me off.
Washington Nearsider on November 14, 2011 at 11:19 AM
Exactly. Remember how that worked out in the MA special election and Brown was elected? If it’s upheld, that will be the one thing to re-energize the Tea Party. Obama will gloat and tick everyone off. At that point it IS Anyone But Obama. Also, this is the one thing that could make me campaign for Romney should he get the nomination.
conservative pilgrim on November 14, 2011 at 11:20 AM
If they throw it out on that basis without ruling on the rest of the law, it would give the court a way to avoid making a declarative statement on the constitutionality of the law. Thus pushing it back until Romney can appoint more conservative justices to the court.
csdeven on November 14, 2011 at 11:20 AM
Isn’t there any mechanism to force Kagan to recuse herself if she refuses?
JFS61 on November 14, 2011 at 11:21 AM
I’d be fine if the mandate only stood for the D’s – you know the people with a D after their name.
MeatHeadinCA on November 14, 2011 at 11:21 AM
I said can, not will, genius. Reid and Pelosi are currently powerless btw. If the GOP wins the senate and WH though, I lean more to will than can.
Akzed on November 14, 2011 at 11:21 AM
If there was, you can bet the lefties would have already tried it on the right side of the court.
MeatHeadinCA on November 14, 2011 at 11:21 AM
Well, he at least has a bus….
Static21 on November 14, 2011 at 11:22 AM
Isn’t it going to be heard in March? It usually takes months for a ruling.
Cindy Munford on November 14, 2011 at 11:22 AM
Has anybody offered up any believable limiting principle should this be upheld? I haven’t heard one yet. And not just what falls under the commerce clause, but also the limits of the word “regulate”.
forest on November 14, 2011 at 11:23 AM
Nope. Uncle Sugar would have a free hand to force you to only buy what-is-good-for-you-says-us.
Limerick on November 14, 2011 at 11:26 AM
bill will die due to severability IMO… those idiots were hoping to reconcile the bills and tweak it beyond what was originally passed by the senate, but lo and behold the RINO Scott Brown won and forced the DEMs hand and they were unable to reconcile the bills and had to get to POTUS the highly flawed bill – which didn’t include a severability clause.
hahah… it will go down…
you know who this helps?
gatorboy on November 14, 2011 at 11:26 AM
I wish I would learn to bookmark articles. I remember reading that one of Justice Sotomayor’s “qualities” is that she tends to browbeat and nag people into agreeing with her and that Justice Kennedy was the intended recipient of these charms and I also read that he knew it and was annoyed, sealing his decision not to retire during Obama’s term. It’s like a soap opera.
Cindy Munford on November 14, 2011 at 11:27 AM
Nope.
csdeven on November 14, 2011 at 11:28 AM
Remember when we thought there was NO WAY that the SCOTUS would upheld McCain-Feingold…something about Congress shall make no laws…and we see how that turned out for us for awhile.
not holding my breath here.
g2825m on November 14, 2011 at 11:29 AM
This would be normal for tyrants, though. Celebrating their power over the people is so much fun.
lorien1973 on November 14, 2011 at 11:29 AM
If they rule in our favor, it may fire up liberal base to re-elect Obama and swing court Liberal going fwd.
If they rule for Obama the liberal base may be more likely to stay home and it fire up COnservative base to make sure we move court Conservative
jp on November 14, 2011 at 11:30 AM
The timing on this decision is perfect. We will know, once and for all, if America can reverse it’s decline, or put the brakes on and re-start the painful up-hill climb.
I tell you this. If the Supremes okay this steaming pile, and Americans STILL elect Obama, and keep one of the chambers Democrat, then we are F*CKED. We deserve what we get.
moc23 on November 14, 2011 at 11:30 AM
if they rule in favor of it, it will take a GOP President and filibuster proof congress like it took to pass it to get rid of it.
jp on November 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM
Welcome to Logan’s Run.
Limerick on November 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM
Phew! It looks like I’ll miss out on the mandate along with Munford, Mankai, right2bright, etc
too bad for csdeven, aslan’s, azked, conservativepilgrim…
g2825m on November 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM
Here’s a fun thought.
We had this little war back in the 1940′s remember?
Government asked the people to buy war bonds to support the war.
Curious why, when the future of the free world was at stake, the government didn’t force everyone to buy war bonds. And instead, just suggested people do so.
Maybe the government noticed the irony here and simply decided not to exercise its power?
lorien1973 on November 14, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Kennedy will only make history is he votes it down and then writes an opinion that will be present in every law school book from here to eternity. He votes to support it, it will be just another decision expanding the Commerce Clause, which is not that interesting. So, if you take the micro view of this matter, I believe that Kennedy will vote with Scalia so long as he gets to write the opinion.
RedSoxNation on November 14, 2011 at 11:35 AM
Yes, it has to be related to commerce. For example, in Lopez (gun control case) they held that possessing a gun near a school is not related to commerce, and therefore doesn’t fall under the Commerce Clause.
tneloms on November 14, 2011 at 11:35 AM
That already happened.
visions on November 14, 2011 at 11:40 AM
Jeebus, why all the long faces around here? This could be… could be… a moment we have all been waiting for. Obamacare is the biggest expansion of a reading of the commerce clause that most of us have seen in our lifetimes. This Court could well be posed to finally draw a big bright legal line around just what does and what does not constitute regulation of interstate commerce. If they do that, one of the pillars under the foundation of big government will have gotten weaker, if not destroyed.
JohnGalt23 on November 14, 2011 at 11:42 AM
This idea of regulating the commerce between the states is a clue to where this is going. I cannot believe that the GOP is so stupid as to use purchasing across state lines as a solution to Obamacare. The minute we can buy across state lines, the 10th comes into play and the congress CAN, and will, impose Obamacare on us. But it wont be Obamacare. It will be GOPcare. THIS possible situation would give someone like Romney the freedom to support a mandated federal healthcare program.
So please people, DO NOT EVER support the idea that we can start purchasing insurance across state lines.
csdeven on November 14, 2011 at 11:43 AM
Incoherence. How can I be hacking off my nose to spite America if my objections “do not matter.” I’m merely venting spleen (and how that translates into “euphoric glee” amounts to further incoherence).
Now — time for the braying laugh! Don’t disappoint.
rrpjr on November 14, 2011 at 11:43 AM
Supporters of the bill say those liberties enshrined in the constitution are the only things exempt from the Commerce Clause. What amazes me though is how anyone can honestly believe the Founders ever imagined such an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause. Such an expansive reading flips the Constitution upside down when it comes to the structural limitations imagined by the Founders when writing this document.
NotCoach on November 14, 2011 at 11:44 AM
If I live close to a school, will my choice to sit at home and not buy something be unrelated to commerce?
forest on November 14, 2011 at 11:45 AM
What’s her face, should recuse herself as she worked with Obama on Obamacare.
portlandon on November 14, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Yes exactly! The key rational from the article….
csdeven on November 14, 2011 at 11:46 AM
I love Ginny Thomas, but she needs to lay very low until this is decided- for the sake of optics.
parteagirl on November 14, 2011 at 11:46 AM
Question: is it up to Kagan alone to decide to recuse herself, or can she legally be made to?
parteagirl on November 14, 2011 at 11:48 AM
Yeah riiiiight. You have been waiting to say “I TOLD YOU 8ASTARDS SO!!!” ever since St Palin the Victimized let you down by not running for POTUS. You WANT it to happen so you can claim that on one issue you were proven correct. The group knows that to be true because we have been dealing with you Palin worshipers nonsense since last April.
csdeven on November 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM
Court ruling in a Bob Dole/Simpsons nutshell-
“Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others”.
jjshaka on November 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM
Um, they also granted cert on the Medicaid expansion… which hasn’t ever won but it is a much bigger deal than the individual mandate.
ninjapirate on November 14, 2011 at 11:52 AM
There is no authority above the court to force her to do so. There are no rules within the court to force her to do so. All that is there is the morals of the person. And considering ALL progressives believe that any means justify their ends, she will never recuse herself. That behavior was on display when Pelosi was promising to pole vault over the rules to get her agenda passed. It is that attitude that leads to violence in EVERY progressive system ever implemented.
csdeven on November 14, 2011 at 11:52 AM
That seems obviously related to commerce. The question is whether that’s enough to make it covered by the Commerce Clause. Supporters of the constitutionality of ObamaCare are saying it is.
tneloms on November 14, 2011 at 11:53 AM
Correction: Obama spends the rest of the year campaigning that Republicans took away their free healthcare and that sure the legislation was not perfect, but with the Republicans “filibustering” this was the best they could do. Then he will say that the Reps should have come to him with a proposal to fix the things that were slightly less than perfect.
ObamaCare is a weight hanging around his neck. He will spin it.
Also, Obama will have to say that the judiciary is racist and we should appoint all new members because there are no black people on the court. (Thomas isn’t black according to liberals.
jeffn21 on November 14, 2011 at 11:55 AM
I am very uneasy as to which way Kennedy will lean on this one, he has a past proclivity towards the commerce clause trumping most all else based on the the successfully imbedded notion buy progressive’s that precedence reigns supreme, which translates that any evil once implemented, must always be implemented. Thank you very much Ivy League law schools for bestowing this idiocy upon us.
We all know how the leftists on the court will come down on this, to them and all leftists alike the breifly mentioned words “health and welfare” mentioned in Constitution render the other 4397 words ther found null and void. Which if that were in fact the true intent of the framers begs the question why they bothered including the rest of that which is found in Constitution, or the Bill Of Rights for that matter. But logic and common sense usually escape leftists as a rule of thumb so I am not surprised.
No my fellow compatriots, I fear that the fate of the Republic solely rests in the hands of Justice Thomas now.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
Archimedes on November 14, 2011 at 11:59 AM
Careful. Your Captain Queeg is showing.
rrpjr on November 14, 2011 at 12:02 PM
Bet $100 that there’s NO WAY the left will allow Kagan’s recusal and there’s NO WAY Kagen will recuse herself.
I also see this as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to offer the October surprise against the GOP – and that will probably be how it plays out. The thought that the US Government CAN mandate Americans purchase a product is unconstitutional on its face, but the SCOTUS will NOT provide that opinion under its current construction. They will bail or decide the Government can do as it wishes “for the better good”.
katablog.com on November 14, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Let him. It will only redound to his defeat. People hate this thing.
Missy on November 14, 2011 at 12:03 PM
When and if this piece of crap is struck down, the economy will start to show signs of life. obambi will take credit for that as well. I just pray that the people of this country that voted for this POS are awake and aware of what is going on.
VegasRick on November 14, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Hasn’t the courts recent rulings been decidedly PRO-FEDERAL government?
SouthernGent on November 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM
As much as I can’t stand Mitt, I think a ruling overturning Obamacare before the elections actually helps him by taking that issue off the table. Obama can’t neutralize him by pointing out that Romneycare provided the blueprint for Obamacare, and nobody on our side has to worry about Mitt getting too squishy to overturn it.
thirteen28 on November 14, 2011 at 12:09 PM
Bwahahahaha!!! You Palin worshipers have been postulating conspiracy theories for months and NONE of them had one iota of evidence. Captain Queeg indeed.
We on the other hand, have the evidence of the Palin worshipers WRITTEN threats to sit home in the hopes that the country will burn so you can gleefully tell the country and the GOP establishment “I TOLD YOU 8ASTARDS SO!!!!”. You hope for this because you erroneously believe that an Obama win will teach us all a lesson that only you are wise enough to understand.
csdeven on November 14, 2011 at 12:10 PM
And we would see Republicans sweep the elections on pledging to repeal ObamaCare.
Bank on it.
ButterflyDragon on November 14, 2011 at 12:11 PM
I think you are correct. I’d still like to see it struck down though.
VegasRick on November 14, 2011 at 12:15 PM
Missy, but the lsm keeps talking about this bogus poll that over 50% like the individual mandate
/
cmsinaz on November 14, 2011 at 12:18 PM
You fear that?
Hell, I hope that’s the case. If the fate of this country was truly in Justice Thomas’s hands, I’d be elated.
ButterflyDragon on November 14, 2011 at 12:19 PM
This. I believe that Justice Kennedy put off retiring just for this moment (to strike down Obamacare).
“What we do in life echoes in eternity.” -Maximus Decimus Meridius (from the movie “Gladiator”)
RedRobin145 on November 14, 2011 at 12:22 PM
I got a 4th question. Can we get Dr. Levin to argue our side in front of the court?
ConservativePartyNow on November 14, 2011 at 12:23 PM
Let’s look at this logically. In reality, the fate of this law is already been decided. I highly doubt any of the justices has yet to make up their mind on this–this has been heading their way for years, and they all know it.
Kagan and the Wise Latina will uphold death panels and concentration camps if asked to, so they are a guaranteed vote to uphold.
I bet that Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are guaranteed nos. So that’s five votes pretty well in the bag.
Scalia will likely lean no, but it’s not a guarantee. But given so, that is four votes to toss Obamacare.
That leaves Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer. I think we could see some surprises with these three. Ginsburg and Breyers are, for all their faults, actual judges, and were appointed in a time when the progressives at least pretended to respect law and order. And Ginsburg has been getting chummy with Scalia lately. I think Ginsburg has in particular been rumored to not get along with Kagan and Sotomayer, and for some reason doesn’t like Obama. So in fact she may not be all down with the Obamacare thing.
Breyer is probably okay with it, though.
But assuming that Ginsburg and Breyer join the fascist wing, that leaves, of course, Kennedy.
And I think Kennedy will overturn it. Why? He is widely reported to not like the Obama administration and the whole appointment of a nag to specifically influence him went over like a lead balloon. The Alito-Obama conflict didn’t go down well either.
Kennedy will not uphold Obamacare, is my guess. He will side with the forces of freedom, for a change.
And think about it: if Obamacare’s rational passes, that’s pretty much the end of the Supreme Court too, as EVERYTHING will be justified under “the Commerce Clause.” What’s left of the Constitution? And the Supreme’s will have ceded all their power to the rest of the government, because everything has an impact on commerce.
I don’t know that the Supremes will go for that.
Vanceone on November 14, 2011 at 12:24 PM
A Kennedy saving the country is ironic. I hope he does.
VegasRick on November 14, 2011 at 12:25 PM
Feels good to live in Ohio, far from the consequences of Federal health mandates.
Osis on November 14, 2011 at 10:52 AM
We the People amended the Ohio constitution.
Osis on November 14, 2011 at 12:28 PM
Actually, I think we’re going to be stuck with the current 4-4-plus-1 split for quite awhile. Even if republicans take the presidency and the senate, dems will probably filibuster any attempt to replace one of the libs with a strong ‘original-intent’ type.
happi on November 14, 2011 at 12:29 PM
I wonder if Ø will have the good sense to be nice to any SC Justices who appear at the State of the Union Speech. Given his gaffe last year of upchucking his feelings at them over Citizens United v. FEC decision I bet that he will be his usual arrogant, know-it-all, narcissistic self. He’ll find some way to irritate people and play to his base at the expense of another branch of government.
ExpressoBold on November 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM
Braying laughter on cue!
And just as Queeg always returned to the strawberries when unpleasant subjects arose, so it is that Palin is invoked when uncomfortable truths such as Romney’s bind around Obamacare with arises. I can understand your unwillingness to deal with it. But you must know that conjuring up “St. Palin the Victimized” ad nauseum won’t save you.
rrpjr on November 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM
I look forward to a time in this country when we say “we tried your libtard a$$hole policies, now we are going to do what works, the PEOPLE have spoken”.
VegasRick on November 14, 2011 at 12:33 PM
Why do you ask that – were they also Socialists?
Chip on November 14, 2011 at 12:45 PM
If the HealthCareBill is struck down by SCOTUS, how would that effect a Romney candidacy?
davidk on November 14, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Well duh! And anyone who doesn’t understand that the Nazis were socialists is willfully ignorant.
NotCoach on November 14, 2011 at 12:56 PM
silberman kind of gave the game away… anthony kennedy is probably already looking at his judgement.. i am not going to be shocked if john roberts upholds it too..
nagee76 on November 14, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Probably shouldn’t get too far ahead of ourselves, but we’ve got this covered if by chance we stop the infighting among Republicans and all vote for the eventual party nominee.
If America elects a Republican President and Senate, the Democrats have already recently exercised the nuclear option in the Senate and we just let them know their motion to continue debate (indefinitely) on the president’s nominee to the court is suspended.
And yes, Kennedy is currently the most powerful man in the country. He did put off retiring when he saw the extremism of Obama I believe, as well as (perhaps) indignation at the idea of Sotomayor affecting his vote and certainly the idea that he should retire under a Republican unlike Souter who was a turncoat. On the other hand, Chief Justice Roberts has been very effective by being respectful to Kennedy and letting him take the lead on matters important to him. Thank you President Bush!
scotash on November 14, 2011 at 12:59 PM
BAD NEWS BOYS AND GIRLS……
The SCOTUS is going to let ALL of it slide through.
They are going to take a look at this and essentially say CONGRESS (is the Constitutional voice of the people) they can pass any law they want so long as it doesn’t contradict constitutional precedent, etc.
This law was passed Constitutionally, the bill was signed by the President. End of story.
THIS is why the President must be elected that will give this legislation the DEATH PANEL it deserves (Executive order, legislation, etc.).
PappyD61 on November 14, 2011 at 1:01 PM
ButterflyDragon on November 14, 2011 at 12:19 PM
The comment wazs not AT ALL meant be derogatory to Justice Thomas, but rather the lamentable fact that we should find our Republic in a position that merely one man’s arguements are all that stand between us and utter calamity. Other than Thomas, I’ve not a whole lotta faith in our other supposedly “originalist” Justices, even Scalia whose mental faculties are second to none seems to waver when faced with equal mental gymnastics which he can appreciate on an intellectual level. Come to think of it, the same can be said of Gingrich which is my primary concern regarding his candidacy.
Let there be no mistake, of Thomas I am a huge fan, but he has a formidable task before him. Let us all wish him Godspeed!
Archimedes on November 14, 2011 at 1:04 PM
Actually, with a GOP president, continued control of the House, and a simple majority in the Senate, Obamacare can be repealed using Reconciliation as it was intended.
Here’s how:
Repeal Obamacare via Reconciliation
Droopy on November 14, 2011 at 1:09 PM
Lose/lose scenario for Obama. He hasn’t been campaigning on this because it’s not popular, now it will be at the forefront. It has faded into the background as people on both sides have taken the wait and see approach. If the individual mandate becomes officially a go it will be a disaster for Obama–at a time when faith in government is at an incredible low, who wants to put them in charge of healthcare and be forced to pay for it?
karlant on November 14, 2011 at 1:10 PM
Take your pick……someone that can stop OBAMACARE.
http://www.ricksantorum.com/
http://www.michelebachmann.com/
PappyD61 on November 14, 2011 at 1:11 PM
This law was passed Constitutionally, the bill was signed by the President. End of story.
Funny, I don’t remember “deem & pass” anywhere in the constitution, in the end “deem & pass” may be what is cited as reason for striking Obamacare down.
Jussayin!
Archimedes on November 14, 2011 at 1:11 PM
Sorry, that was a mistake on my part. I misread “socialist national” as “national socialist” (which refers to the Nazis), and I’ve seen commenters on here use that term sometimes.
(By the way, just by way of information, the Nazis certainly called themselves socialists, since it was in the name of the party, but it was more of a marketing thing than a representation of their agenda.)
Anyway, could you respond to the rest of my reply to you:
tneloms on November 14, 2011 at 1:12 PM
Well yes, but just once I’d like one of our venerable Leftists to admit that.
Chip on November 14, 2011 at 1:15 PM
This–>
A lot more at stake here than just this POS un-healthcare bill. Sure, if they rule to uphold it will lead to a crushing in 2012, and repeal. But that ruling would have dire consequences for the republic. Dire.
JusDreamin on November 14, 2011 at 1:16 PM
Heh.
NotCoach on November 14, 2011 at 1:19 PM
The manner in which a law is passed has nothing to do with a facial challenge of its constitutionality.
Droopy on November 14, 2011 at 1:20 PM
Since Kagan and Sotomayor won’t be recusing themselves, no matter how obvious and overwhelming the conflict of interest, I’d give it no better than 1/4 chance of being entirely struck down. It might even be unanimous in support.
smfic on November 14, 2011 at 1:23 PM
I can picture the Justices doing down twinkles in this one. Can you see it? Nine black robes with 40 wriggling fingers up, 50 down.
Who needs written opinions?
MaggiePoo on November 14, 2011 at 1:27 PM
Why do you say this? Why do you think there won’t be at least 4 votes against Obamacare?
Since they asked for comments on severability and the individual mandate, I believe they are going to strike it down if jurisdiction is settled. The court would probably be comfortable with the law but not the mandate. I don’t think they want to leave the mess of upholding the law without the mandate.
Kennedy will be the swing vote and I don’t believe he likes to be thought of as a weak justice able to be influenced by either side.
Vince on November 14, 2011 at 1:37 PM
What historic facts do you base this on?
Did the third Reich not have public provision of non-public goods or central planning to implement such a policy?
Ever hear of the phrase: “Two steps forward, one step back”?
Just because the freedoms of our Constitutional republic are being eroded at a slow rate doesn’t mean the overall effect isn’t detrimental to the cause of Liberty.
What isn’t even tangentially related to economic activity?
Chip on November 14, 2011 at 1:39 PM
“Marketing”? LOL.
Ludwig von Mises found that they were in fact socialists.
Del Dolemonte on November 14, 2011 at 1:40 PM
Well then, wouldn’t it be unanimous even if they did recuse themselves?
Vince on November 14, 2011 at 1:41 PM
Here’s a nuclear option.
If Kagan doesn’t recuse herself, and the purchase mandate is upheld in the ruling, a Republican president and Congress impeach her in 2013 and overrule SCOTUS on the basis that the decision was reached improperly.
Of course, a Republican Congress and president can repeal the Obamacare law. But if the SCOTUS ruling upholds the mandate, it cannot be allowed to stand. It will poison the basis of law in the US for the rest of time.
J.E. Dyer on November 14, 2011 at 1:41 PM
Do you disagree? Socialism was certainly a part of the Nazi platform, but so were a lot of things, and socialism wasn’t central. In fact, the reason they called themselves *National* Socialists was to distinguish themselves from Marxism. But again, a lot of this was marketing rather than actual policy.
In any case, I’m not sure why it’s important to tie Nazis to socialism. Both the Nazi and socialist governments were terrible, and though there is a connection, the Nazi government would have been terrible even if it hadn’t been socialist at all.
tneloms on November 14, 2011 at 1:43 PM
“This court is the judge of its own power.” — First Monday in October.
Think about that.
MassVictim on November 14, 2011 at 1:43 PM
As did Hayek. But maybe Hayek just didn’t understand slick marketing.
NotCoach on November 14, 2011 at 1:43 PM
I would be extremely (and happily) surprised if they strike it down. The Dems knew that this Trojan horse for state run health care was never going to be repealed, that’s why they were willing to sacrifice one or two election cycles to get it passed. In a few years nobody will even remember how it was passed and the Dems will continue to build on it until we have full-fledged socialized medicine. This was long-term planning, they knew that no major entitlement has ever been repealed in the history of the country.
Depressing but true.
neuquenguy on November 14, 2011 at 1:44 PM
It is important because it is important to establish that all modern day tyrannies in the Western world are creatures of Marxism. The Nazis were hardcore socialists who only varied from the Communists in terms of national pride. The Nazis (Fascists in general really) wanted to co-opt their national identities into the movement. Communists wanted to reinvent everything, including the wheel.
NotCoach on November 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM
Those on the Left are terrified that the Nazis might have in fact be Socialists, because it shoots to hell their assumptions that All Socialism is Good. Therefore, they are against all attempts to link the two together.
Likewise, in their parallel universe, al Qaeda could operate in every single country on the planet except for one (Iraq).
You might find this of interest:
http://mises.org/daily/1937
Del Dolemonte on November 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »