Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Obamacare Lawsuit
- Posted on November 14, 2011 at 10:55am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear arguments next March over President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul – a case that could shake the political landscape just as voters are about to decide if Obama deserves another term.
The decision to hear arguments in the spring allows plenty of time for a decision in late June, just over four months before Election Day. This sets up an election-year showdown over the White House’s main domestic policy achievement.
The justices announced they will hear more than five hours of arguments, an extraordinarily long session, from lawyers on the constitutionality of a provision at the heart of the law. The provision in question is the requirement that individuals buy health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty, and other related questions about the act.
A White House spokesman said, “We are pleased that the court has agreed to hear this case.”
“We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree,” communications direct Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement.
Republicans have called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional since before Obama signed it into law in March 2010. But only one of the four federal appeals courts that have considered the health care overhaul has struck down even a part of the law.
The federal appeals court in Atlanta said Congress exceeded its power under the Constitution when it adopted the mandate. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the entire law, as did appellate judges in Washington, DC, in recent days.
The case could become the high court’s most significant and political ruling since its 5-4 decision in the Bush v. Gore case nearly 11 years ago effectively sealed George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential election victory.
In addition to deciding whether the law’s central mandate is constitutional, the justices will also determine whether the rest of the law can take effect even if that central mandate is held unconstitutional.
The court also will look at the law’s expansion of the joint federal-state Medicaid program that provides health care to poorer Americans. The states say the law goes too far in coercing them into participating by threatening a cutoff of federal money.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 586 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 372 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 372 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (161)
bernbart
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:56amConsidering there is only ONE federal court ruling against the provision to require all to buy insurance and FOUR federal courts already which upheld the Affordable Care Act it has a pretty good chance of surviving in the Supreme Court. As the majority of federal judges who have ruled in favor of ACA were republicans or appointed by a republican president.
Anyone who can afford health insurance and does not buy it, is an irresponsible human being. Those of us who pay for health insurance are also paying higher premiums because of for those irresponsible people who do not buy insurance.
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 12:19pmAnything could happen between NOW and March 2012…I recommend that “conservative” Supreme Court Judges be given 24/7 security guard protection…Just sayin’…
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 12:29pmAnd what gives you, or anybody, power to force me to purchase anything simply by the fact that I exist? Nothing. Not one damned thing.
Get over yourself Bern, you’re not the Master of others.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 12:47pmIt’s ridiculous to say the government has no constitutional authority to force you to buy health insurance. Several times, it has successfully claimed constitutional authority to force men into military service. There is a constitutional amendment, like it or not, that forces you to pay a certain percentage of your income in income taxes. How is mandatory purchase of health insurance more intrusive or tyrannical than that?
If Obamacare requires the uninsured to buy insurance or face a fine–essentially an extra tax for the privilege of remaining uninsured–it’s only because Obama was unwilling, or unable, to go for a single payer system, which would have been the simplest solution.
Report Post »rfycom
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 12:48pmAnd what gives uninsured people the right to cost me more money to support their good for nothing ass?
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 1:14pmWe should be able to buy the policy we want. I’m almost 48, and post-menopausal. Obamacare will require me to have insurance that covers pregnancy…..and WHY? There will be no more “buffet style” policies, where you can pick and choose what is covered. There will be no more only catastrophic coverage and you pay for every thing with cash. I met a lady at my husband’s therapy who told me that she called to check on how much a procedure was going to cost (forget what it was) and they told her it depended on her insurance, but probably close to $2,000. She said we don’t have insurance, want to know what they said it would cost? I figured half, making it $1,000. NO. It would cost $400 if they gave cash. They have to pay someone to process it. And the government doesn’t have control of it yet. Wait until every government employee with a computer can access your health records. Then they will make medical decisions based on their preceived need. You have cancer? Well, you’re over 50 and we already paid out x-amount for a bi-pass surgery, and dental work, etc. This is going to cost too much…….DENIED!
Did you know the health care bill has a tax (oops, not supposed to use that word) in it that whenever you sell a house, you have to pay 3.8% (that’s above realtor fees and all the other fees that usually add up to around 8%, so now you pay almost 12%) to the government? This is how they plan to fund health care…with hidden taxes. I know. I read it.
Report Post »CptStubbing
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 1:15pmIn order to keep health insurance costs down once every person is required to buy it, the government will have to start putting stipulations on behavior. We will have to keep our weight at a certain level or our premiums will go up, we will have to live within a certain regimented diet to keep our premiums in a manageable level.
Since the government can force us to buy health insurance, they can force us to remain healthy. Perhaps that means that they will then start forcing us to buy other things for the greater good. They can force us then to purchase vitamins and take them daily in order to remain healthy. We will be forced to be vaccinated for everything, because the government says we must. What some fail to realize is that when the government says we must do something they then have the ability to criminalize any activity related to that mandate.
Someone brought up income tax. That is an example of a criminalized activity based on a mandate by the government. All people are required to file; thus, if there is any error in your requirement to the almighty government you are then deemed a criminal. It is the same thing that happened with the 18th amendment, except in reverse. The reason the 16th amendment is an amendment is because it was unconstitutional to impose an income tax. They had to make it constitutional. I, for one, am for the repeal of that amendment as well. It is a gross overstep by the federal government.
Report Post »smokeyridgerunner
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 1:49pmAre you a pairsite who lives off of other peoples income. Do you live on food stamps to damn lazy to try and find a job?
Report Post »pduffy
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 2:01pmDefine “afford”.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 2:15pm@Drako
Forced into a draft is not being forced to buy something (and since we’re not supposed to have a standing army, your example only further strengthens my contention about unconstitutionality). Forced income tax is not being forced to buy something. It’s the government confiscating your wealth.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 2:17pm@RFYCOM
Please, do try to at least put some effort into your posts.
We’re arguing against a system that would force you to support anybody, since you would not be required by government policy to take up the slack for others.
Hope this helps.
Report Post »Conservative_T-Rex
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 2:25pmI‘m guessing Bernbart frequents fast food establishments and hasn’t stepped foot in a gym for at least a decade. Just a guess though.
Report Post »TimelessJewel
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 2:38pmSadly, I once thought the same thing until I found it costs me MORE now WITH mandated insurance coverage by New York State to cover chiropractic care. The cost was so much during an acute episode needing multiple visits for back care for my husband BEFORE it was mandaed to cover chiropractic. We were put on the practice family plan which meant all of us could go for $5.00 a visit. Now that coverage is mandated–the practice is no longer able to negotiate cost of care due to contract obligations. Interestingly, the practice did not take one particular HMO as the HMO forced a copay that was $5.00 MORE than the cost of the visit.
Report Post »On another note: my 25 year old neice who did not have medical insurance was able to negotiate the “Canadian cash price” of $425. for an MRI of her knee–the going insurance rate for this is $1080. the MRI facility (yes we live in a city on the Canadian border) told her they still made a profit with this–by the way, this was before the Canadian dollar was worth more than the US greenback. Weneed Torte reform and insurance competition FIRST!
freedom in not free
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 3:32pmIt is not irresponsible to not have insurance. It is irresponsible to not pay your bills. Since when did health insurance become necessary to health care? We don’t use our car insurance to buy new tires, pay for oil changes and tune ups. We don’t use our home owners insurance to buy new carpet, paint, or appliances. Why then do we use our health insurance for anything other than catastrophic purposes. When people don’t know what the services cost they are more inclined to let doctors perform tests that are not needed. We have not had insurance in over 15yrs. We pay for all medical care out of pocket, and we use the money we used to pay for premiums to pay for it. People need to learn to budget their money to include health care expenses, not health insurance. Of course the cost of health insurance is outrageous. When you use it for every little thing, the cost is guaranteed to go up. If this mandate passes, no one will be able to afford their homes or groceries, because they will be paying it all to the insurance company. That is why we dropped it so long ago. With a family of 6 the premiums were nearly what our mortgage was, and that was with a catastrophic deductible of $5000/$10,000. Under this new plan, we would no longer even be able to carry that kind of coverage. Praying that this monstrosity is denied by the Supreme Court.
Report Post »Brewskie
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 3:59pm“essentially an extra tax for the privilege of remaining uninsured”
If it a “tax” then it is automatically unconstitutional, just for that.
In areas of taxation bills MUST begin in the House. Obamacare was not.
Report Post »gmoneytx
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 4:09pmBERNBART you are wrong, the reason health insurance is not affordable is lawsuits, state and federal cost to loss ratios, and government sticking their noses in places it doesn’t belong…for example, back in 2010 when big gov. mandated that children under 19 could not have a pre-existing clause, guess what insurance companies did, STOP SELLING CHILD ONLY POLICIES…
Didn’t Obama say, “affordable healthcare for everyone”??? Well how’s that working out so far…and since the first round of mandates, healthcare has risen on average…So, you like that government nose do ya!
Report Post »Johnadda
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 4:54pmPeople in America just don’t seem to open their eyes. Obama and his team want the supreme court to decide against the govt making people purchase health care. Think about it, Obama wants a Socialistic Health care, that means FREE TO ALL. So if can‘t make the people pay towards their Health Care then he gets what he’s always wanted, THE PUBLIC OPTION meaning govt funded FREE TO ALL Health care. You have been PLAYED
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 5:08pmThe problem for Obamacare is that when the law was passed we were told it’s not a tax. But since it’s been in court, Obamcare’s lawyers say it is a tax. This is where it will fall apart for Obamacare.
Report Post »KTsayz
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 6:24pmActually, the outcome doesn’t matter. According to our Constitution, I am a sovereign individual. SCOTUS can’t decide what I can or cannot purchase, and neither can Congress, as long as my purchase, or lack thereof, does no harm to others. Until The People once again understand what our founders were creating, this steady road to ruin will proceed.
Report Post »And since we no longer really have a representative government as polls show the greater number of The People oppose what Congress passed, I say it’s time the vote to keep or reverse Obamacare be put to the people as a separate item. And let the vote be done with IDs needed that only American citizens can vote. I not have the votes done by machines. I say we a paper ballot with a finger dipped in purple dye once it’s in the box to ensure an honest vote.
Actually, I believe we’ll need that for the presidential election, as well,
Hobbs57
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 7:51pmYou people who support this notion are absolute fools. I have lived in Australia and pondered upon why it is they have what seems to be bullet proof glass between me and the person behind the desk. Judging by the care my wife’s son received, it dawned upon me. Yes, I do see some problems in the system we have now, which is those who have existing health problems and can’t get health coverage do to existing problems. Well, they can, but it isn’t affordable, but only for the reason because the cost of which they can incur are extremely costly. The thing is, these people fail to reason with the fact that if the technology or treatment that is available to them leading to them being able to live wasn’t available, they would not exist. I don’t want to sound mean, but they want their cake and eat it too. They want to receive expensive health care but pay minimal premiums. The truth for myself is such that if I am to die, then I am to die. I I am to live, a way will avail itself. I don’t trust western medicine and see it as the “practice” it says it is. I mean, while people continue to live longer, illnesses such as Alzheimer’s not only rob the person of any quality of life but also their mates and family members. I don’t know, absent faith, so many intellects are scared to death to die. They can’t realize this fear is a result of the fact they have no faith. It is here their compulsion to force you and I to pay for their care originates. Why should I be responsible for t
Report Post »amrcn
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 10:57pmToo bad the stupid cowards would not take the case to prove he is an illegal imposter in OUR White House.
Report Post »DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 12:06amIf it‘s upheld it’s a declaration of war on we the people. Let’s give what they want. To arms!
Report Post »DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 12:52amArticle One, Section One of the Constitution says that ALL legislative authority is VESTED in the Congress. Weird, judges don’t make laws.
The Congress does not have the authority to tax existence or seize a private industry(insurance). This “decision” decides nothing. It has nothing to do with healthcare. This is about usurping Congress and usurping the power to grant rights. Once the government can tell you what to buy, you no longer have rights in their minds.
Keep your rights no matter what “law” is passed. There should be no gun control laws, no “hate speech” laws, no “patriot” act.
Isn’t it odd that you can kill someone in a DUI and still get your drivers license(a privilege) back? Yet you can lose you gun RIGHTS for life for violating numerous carry laws or even after being released from prison(paid your debt and are a free citizen). Americans think that is normal!!
Report Post »UrbanCombatSurvivor
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 2:19amIf you think the word “Republican” is some magical shield against infiltration by the Progressive/Communist movement, you are sadly mistaken.
There are progressives in BOTH parties, and they are in the positions of power in those parties. Republican or Democrat are meaningless now.
Report Post »weeblewacker1
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 12:07pmwell,in a way, i do hope that the mandatory buying of health insurance part is shot-down! just so it would pave the way for a single payer system,like it should have been in the first place! the other parts,do need to stay in,especially the part of pre-existing conditions.
Report Post »NotaLemming
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:47amVIDEO : Cass Sunstein ‘Food and Shelter should NOT be a right’. So then why is ObamaCare?
Report Post »http://yourdaddy.net/2010/06/13/cass-sunstein-food-and-shelter-should-not-be-a-right-so-why-is-healthcare/
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:56am.
Report Post »I already have an asprin and some band aids, what more can Obama offer?……
Johnadda
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 10:25pmPeople in America just don’t seem to open their eyes. Obama and his team want the supreme court to decide against the govt making people purchase health care. Think about it, Obama wants a Socialistic Health care, that means FREE TO ALL. So if can‘t make the people pay towards their Health Care then he gets what he’s always wanted, THE PUBLIC OPTION meaning govt funded FREE TO ALL Health care. You have been PLAYED
Report Post »KidCharlemagne
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:43am“In addition to deciding whether the law’s central mandate is constitutional, the justices will also determine whether the rest of the law can take effect even if that central mandate is held unconstitutional.”
========================================================================
Of course it’s constitutional!:
“Gingrich Backs Obamacare’s Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance
Sunday, 15 May 2011 07:18 PM
By Tim Collie
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday that he strongly supports a federal mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance – a position that has been rejected by many Republicans, including several who likely will be running against him for the Republican presidential nomination.
Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance.”
Report Post »http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-health-care-insurance/2011/05/15/id/396426
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:55amQuoting Gingrich doesn’t make it Constitutional. There is no authority granted to the Fed government to compel the purchase of anything. Whatever is not granted to them, is denied.
Report Post »bernbart
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:59amFour federal courts with a majority of republican appointed judges have already Upheld the porvison to requires people to buy insurance, and only ONE has ruled against it.
Report Post »carbonyes
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 12:03pmGingrich is not a sell out. He never was a true conservative. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He and Pelosi are bosom buddies. He supported NAFTA, GATT WTO, United Nations, member of CFR, Bohemia Society, and that is just scratching the surface. Gingrich is a supporter of Gingrich and global warming, Big Government spending, and the story still continues. Do not fall for hos deceptions. Him and Slick Willy were Bosom buddies too.
Report Post »Bloody Sam
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 3:26pm“…the justices will also determine whether the rest of the law can take effect even if that central mandate is held unconstitutional.”
They cannot. If they find that the central mandate is unconstitutional, the rest is void. There is NO severability clause in this ACA monstrosity. The Supremes cannot put one there or decide if the thing can stand on its own. If they do try, there will be a huge fight over it.
Report Post »But they won’t.
cemerius
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:38amIt will be judged weighed and found wanting……DOA!! Bye Bye Community-Organizer-in-Chief!!!
Report Post »bleuze
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:56amWe MUST email Congree to force Kagan to recuse herself. She is Obama’s “ACE”!
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 12:21pmI PRAY that you are right!
Report Post »encinom
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 1:05pmbleuze
Report Post »Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:56am
We MUST email Congree to force Kagan to recuse herself. She is Obama’s “ACE”!
___________________________________________
Thomas must be removed from the bench, hs failure to report income, the overt support he gives his tea bagging wfe and her organzations. Thomas is corrupt and hopelessly conflicted.
BrerRabbit
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:34amI don’t give a D$mn if it is or not! I DO NOT want it!
Report Post »CatB
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:43amI agree we must elect those who have the b*lls to repeal it!
TEA!
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:50am@CatB — do not be shocked if this legislation dies the final death that Obama will make it reappear by some form of regulatory maneuver or executive order; or probably a mixture of both.
One part in determination of the Obama-care law, if I recall the discussions into the matter right, is that there is no part that stipulates clearly if one part of the law is found unconstitutional the rest of the law is unaffected — so technically, if one part is found to be unconstitutional, then all of the bill is suppose to die with it.
Report Post »Watcher1952
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:34amDoes anyone doubt what the outcome will be from this BOUGHT AND PAID FOR COURT….We have two appointed persons that are only paperwork judges…..with the exception of a couple judges this bunch is trying to tear the Constitution apart.
Report Post »bleuze
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:54amThat is why we must email the political powers in Congress to make sure Kagan recuse’s herself!!!
Report Post »bleuze
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:58amEmail your congressman & senator to force Kagan to recuse herself. Obama knows that he can count on her since she was his attorney
Report Post »funwithguitars
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:33amBalance as of now, 5 to 4. I suspect {conspiracy theory here} that some conservative justice will pass away, allowing big O to replace him/her with another progressive/liberal/socialist/communist type. Clarence, take your vitamins.
Report Post »right-wing-waco
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:25amI really don’t care what the Supremes say, it’s unconstitutional. When I went through school I learned to read and comprehend an there is no authority in the Constitution for this law, so we need to band together and declare that no matter what the Supremes say… the law is void. Even if a taxpayer strike is necessary. Draw the line in the sand NOW.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:34amYep, my position as well.
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:43amYeah, taxpayer revolts “might” be possible if the government didn’t force employers to deduct payroll and income taxes. If individuals were treated like a business whereby owed taxes are paid monthly or quarterly, then they’d have some leverage against the machine.
Ugh – the 16 Amendment!
Report Post »bleuze
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 12:02pmI agree with you 100% and that is why the government won’t get my money!
Report Post »NoLongerNonPlussed
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 1:28pmThere is no need for a taxpayer rebellion at this time. That tactic should be reserved for time when the Fed Govt withhold funds from states because the states are not complying with Fed Law. When the Fed withholds funds, that then becomes taxation without representation and we all remember how that tea party turned out.
Report Post »No, in this instance, we must use jury nullification on all cases related to enforcement of Affordable Health Care Act.
Azmodious
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:25amThey will vote it constitutional !
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 12:00pmI agree. It’s unconstitutional in several ways. The question is, will they throw the whole thing out, or just pieces of it.
This will be the final nail in this Administration’s coffin.
As to the headline, SCotUS “agreed” to hear the case? They didn’t have much of a choice. They had different circuits ruling different things. That’s practically a guaranteed SCotUS review.
Given that this is a 5-4 court, I expect it to be overturned *BUT* this is a court that’s further Left than the one that ruled 5-4 that Connecticut could abuse its eminent domain laws in Kelo v. City of New London.
Hell! That same year, they were 5-to-4 on whether the Second Amendment was Consitutional in Columbia v. Heller!
There’s no way to tell whether seven of the nine are going to have common sense on this issue. You can be sure that Obama’s two appointments will pay for their appointments with supporting constitutionality.
Report Post »your sensei
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:23amIt’s a conservative court known for deciding in favor of corporations and against the individual. Why so worried?
Report Post »Bekrhed
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:38amHaha
It will be ruled constitutional because Obama-care(s) favors huge insurance and huge pharma.
Oh, and FYI, we will always have Medicare/caid because the private sector doesn’t want to insure people over 65…there’s no profit in old sick people, so that will always be the gubments responsibility.
Have I blown your rightwing mind?
TheVoice1
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:54amBekrhed
Nah, just showed us once again how blown yours is lol
Report Post »DrFrost
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:21am“We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree” – Pfeiffer
Not by ANY standard of measure the founding fathers would have agreed with. Period. End of discussion. Only by reinterpreting various phrases to mean whatever the !%^@%^& they want it to can they possibly push this as constitutional. And using those methods literally ANYTHING can be pushed as constitutional.
I’m going to be sick…
Report Post »Jack of Hearts
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:32amIf you’re going to be sick, make sure you have healthcare.
Report Post »capitalismrocks
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:32amIts the idiot left who think in the Constitution where it say “Promote the General Welfare”
Yes, to promote it, encourage it…. no where does it say PROVIDE IT…. the only thing the Constitution clearly is supposed to provide is for “The Common Defense” and we aren’t even doing that with our wide open borders !!!
Report Post »Silat
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:21amIt will go down 5-4 as unconstitutional. Five justices honor the constitution and the other four use it for toilet paper.
Report Post »WTFHappenedToTheUSA
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 3:30pmMy thoughts exactly Silat.
Report Post »Junter
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:20amEnough with the big brother routine. We don’t want obamacare!
Report Post »True American66
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:16amJustice Kagen MUST recuse herself from this case or the whole decision will be in question FOREVER! If she doesn’t, it will mean that our entire form of government is essentially void. There will be NO justice….ever again. This is our deciding moment as a country, will the PEOPLE DEMAND she recuse herself?
Report Post »carbonyes
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:48amIt will be a cold day in Hell before Kagen would exclude herself from this case regardless of her prior affiliation with similarly situated matters. This is a core piece of B. Hussein’s presidency. Better hope Justice Kennedy holds the line.
Report Post »bleuze
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 12:04pmUse the power of email
Report Post »True American66
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 4:21pmYou’ve got to see the emails she sent while Solicitor General….google Justice Kagen emails…..there is actually a judge who decided she didn’t have to release them….some have been obtained and she types in ALL CAPS; I hear they have the votes larry!! and Fingers and toes crossed!!
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:11amAt this point, I’d bet that Clarence Thomas is the only certain vote of “No”, because he’s really the only pure Constitutionalist justice; his views are the most principled, even among his conservative contemporaries. He’s Tea Party to the bone.
We’ll see how many of his colleagues he can bring aboard. If I had to bet, it would be that the Marxist law will be upheld, and that’s only a gut instinct based on how frightened my fellow Americans have become of government over the past 20-30 years.
Report Post »carbonyes
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:50amHis colleagues are already on board. The question is Kennedy on board?
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 1:25pmI wouldn’t bet the farm on the conservative justices carrying the day.
Report Post »GeorgeWashingtonslept here
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:08amGinsberg will now finally decide to frigging retire……………….then Obama will replace her with an even more Liberal judge………………….this corrupt Administration is not going to let this POS legislation be repealed ………………..be ready………………don’t get too excited…………….
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:15amI agree I have no faith that the supreme court will follow the constitution and repeal. the courts rarely follow the law, they are too stuck on case law to let the pesky constitution get in their way
Report Post »qpwillie
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:07amMy guess is, 0bama already has this decision bought and paid for. We need to repeal it,
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:10amAgreed. I hate legislation through the court anyway. Lets elect people to pull Obamacare out by the roots.
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:05amStopping government mandate to buy Health coverage is an important step to prevent a requirement for human micro-chip. When the Government can get you to do this then they WILL get you to do that.
Report Post »TheVoice1
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:59aminteresting point
Report Post »nohussein
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:05amRoberts and company have a chance to stop one of the biggest communist hits this country has ever seen, the hussein is peeved.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:04amIt gets repealed in 2013 even if the court upholds it.
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:12amFrom my gut, that‘s the only way to Git ’R Done.
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:03am4-4… Talk about a critical decision.
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:03amIt is not constitutional, period. Whether our judicial system will say otherwise is a crap shoot.
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:07amThey don’t fallow the constitution, they fallow previous lawsuits.
Report Post »JP4JOY
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:00amIf the WH is looking forward to the SCotUS hearing the case I wonder who they will cause to recuse themselves?
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:03amSomething just isn’t right about this. They know it’s unconstitutional (they’d never admit it of course). Something doesn’t smell right about this at all.
Report Post »your sensei
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:18amCoke Can Clarence, that’s who.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:33amThank you for keeping the racism alive Sensei. Where would we be without the vile racism of the Left after all?
Report Post »carolinaconservative
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 1:01pmsensei: you are an idiot!
Report Post »your sensei
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:28pmI’m the reminder. Here, I’ll show ya . . . Ahem . . . GoJ, if you’ll step up, please . . .Thank you . . . No no, right there is fine . . . ready? . . . the Peter Principle.
Report Post »Your Sensie
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 12:54amDon’t mind my ramblings, I’m a professional idiot.
Report Post »FreedbyTruth
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 11:00amWOW 5 whole hours to hear arguments on a law that will directly effect every single American every day for the rest of our history. I feel so blessed.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 12:16pmThe Supreme Court… could have done this a long time ago… under Judicial Review… but they lack the Testosterone! And, this does not bode well!
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 10:58amNOW… is Crunch Time! One side or another… will be up in Arms!
Report Post »your sensei
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 9:45amThat will be YOUR side. I suggest you run out and buy all the ammo you can find. It’s been almost 15 minutes since the NRA has manipulated you into spending your mortgage money on cans full of .45 ACP.
Report Post »