Could ObamaCare go the way of McCain-Feingold?
[T]he opponents of McCain-Feingold launched a series of legal attacks that met with little success until 2007, when the Court ruled in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. In that decision, the justices ruled unconstitutional the law’s proscription against campaign ads mentioning candidates by name within a certain period prior to an election. Then, in 2008, the Court voided another crucial provision in Davis v. FEC. Finally, in early 2010, the Court delivered the coup de gras with its landmark ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.
Are the legal foes of Obamacare as numerous and determined as those of McCain-Feingold? The answer to that question is an unequivocal YES. Their numbers are greater, they are far better financed and they are demonstrably more dedicated to the cause. In fact, the dragon’s teeth sown by the Court’s misguided June ruling produced a spate of fresh troops to reinforce those already on the legal battlefield. There are now at least forty legal challenges to the law pending in federal courts involving its various provisions as well as its implementation.
Moreover, the Court just resurrected one of the original challenges to Obamacare by ordering the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider arguments on which it didn’t deign to rule in Liberty University v. Geithner last year. The Fourth Circuit’s pretext for not ruling on the University’s claims was that the federal Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) barred the Appeals Court from ruling on the mandate. The Supreme Court’s June ruling, however, held that the AIA doesn’t apply. Thus, the Appeals Court must give Liberty another hearing.









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
Let’s hope so.
thebrokenrattle on December 1, 2012 at 8:36 PM
Let’s hope so, and hope that John Roberts’ judicial conscience leads him to some serious second thoughts.
petefrt on December 1, 2012 at 8:42 PM
No comparison. This time, there are entire STATES who will be using every bit of power they have to oppose Obamacare.
We need to focus on more than just resisting one bill. Unless we regain the Tenth Amendment, the Republic is doomed.
logis on December 1, 2012 at 8:48 PM
I think it’s much too late now to ever hope for this, regardless of whether the author’s hope is eventually fulfilled …
ShainS on December 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM
If the people who ultimately wield the power of reading the law and applying constitutional limits to it do so in such a way as no one else can imagine what their decisions will be, then there is not constitutional limits.
The Supreme Court has absolutely no credibility at this point.
astonerii on December 1, 2012 at 9:08 PM
Nope. The black man can’t be allowed to fail. That’s the bottom line.
Dack Thrombosis on December 1, 2012 at 9:15 PM
Nope, Marxist care is here to say. It’s part of the plan to totally transform the country into a Marxist state.
bgibbs1000 on December 1, 2012 at 9:33 PM
It won’t matter. By the time it works it way to SCOTUS, Maobama will have loaded the court.
This was always the danger of a 2nd term.
I hope all the people who sat out this election because Romney wasn’t ‘pure’ enough, and those 3rd party dipwads, die slowly, like the Republic will.
*spit*
Mimzey on December 1, 2012 at 9:39 PM
I hope you Rebumblican puppets who couldn’t come up with a better candidate than Mr.White-Obama-lite to beat the worst POTUS ever die suddenly…like I hope the nation will rather than this awful slow-but-sure death.
*spits harder*
*flips you the finger*
MelonCollie on December 1, 2012 at 10:01 PM
What can I do to help this along?
roy_batty on December 1, 2012 at 10:14 PM
It’s ObamaTax.
There is no care in it.
Schadenfreude on December 1, 2012 at 10:52 PM
MelonCollie on December 1, 2012 at 10:01 PM
All good…but why are you a hypocrite?
Schadenfreude on December 1, 2012 at 10:54 PM
What I never got was why we needed the feds to take over into the health care. Here in WI, you can get state insurance if your employer does not offer it. It may cost you money … yes there are brackets based on income, but you can get coverage. So the excuse that poor people could not get insurance nor afford it was nothing but a lie.
As for mittens, I do think he was a bad option because it took away the ObamaCare argument. I am sure liberals were jumping for glee when he got the nod.
watertown on December 2, 2012 at 5:17 AM
The more of Obamacare that comes into effect, the more people are going to hate it. Absolutely no-one is better off with it than without it.
S. Weasel on December 2, 2012 at 7:17 AM
Given the 9-0 vote in favor of religious liberty in Hosanna-Tabor, I’d say the chances might be good. This is Liberty University, a Baptist university where, IIRC, every teacher has to sign a statement of faith. (I don’t think you have to be specifically Baptist to teach there, though.)
I doubt that the Court would get into whether it is indeed a matter of faith for Baptists to object to this.
There is an old 1944 case called US v. Ballard, in which a radio preacher was sued for fraud. The US tried to argue, among other grounds, what he was preaching was not a genuine religious belief, but the Court would not go near that one.
Wethal on December 2, 2012 at 7:28 AM
Same reason as Dodd-Frank. Power.
Control each and every part of the economy for “fairness,” and political correctness, and to maintain power through regulation and cronyism.
Watch for education to be next, with the “core curriculum” requirements being tied to federal funding. First it will be math and English scores, then, the PC version of American history…
Wethal on December 2, 2012 at 7:32 AM
The American Center for Law and Justice (the conservative counterpart to the ACLU) has been working on these cases. They may need donations.
Wethal on December 2, 2012 at 8:16 AM
In the last 2 years our insurance has doubled at work. Singles used to enjoy basic care for around 10 bucks a week and now are paying close to 22 bucks a week. Family coverage is now over 50 a week and you need to jump though hoops if your spouse has insurance now too… you have to prove that they do or your paying the extra money no argument about it.
Do they not already do a lot of that anyways ATM?
watertown on December 2, 2012 at 9:05 AM
The primary voters, many of which were democrats destroyed the nation by picking one of the worst choices of those presented. Perry or Newt would have been much more likely to win the general. Reason? They would have actually been different than Obama to the typical voter, would have also had a more energized base that would have been willing to carry others to the polls.
astonerii on December 2, 2012 at 9:30 AM