Let the arguments begin.........

[BlueStreak]

A lot is riding on this, a lot more than many people may realize. And it seems that both sides are confident enough to have successfully pressured the court to hear the case long before it was originally intended. We may even have an idea where it is headed by the end of the week although as I understand an official ruling might not happen until June?

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/26/149411...aw?sc=fb&cc=fp

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012...ourt-arguments

I'll be following it, as I'm sure you guys will. It's going to be interesting.

Dave

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

A lot is riding on this, a lot more than many people may realize. And it seems that both sides are confident enough to have successfully pressured the court to hear the case long before it was originally intended. We may even have an idea where it is headed by the end of the week although as I understand an official ruling might not happen until June?

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/26/149411...aw?sc=fb&cc=fp

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012...ourt-arguments

I'll be following it, as I'm sure you guys will. It's going to be interesting.

Dave

I plan to read the transcripts. It is a significant case that is profound for the future of this country. Obviously, I think the legislation is flawed and was pushed through by Pelosi and Ried. The whole thing was a circus. People are already against it and they have not seen it in action because it was deliberately backloaded. The cost has doubled from the initial estimates.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I plan to read the transcripts. It is a significant case that is profound for the future of this country. Obviously, I think the legislation is flawed and was pushed through by Pelosi and Ried. The whole thing was a circus. People are already against it and they have not seen it in action because it was deliberately backloaded. The cost has doubled from the initial estimates.

None of that is relevant to it's constitutionality.

And implementation has been underway for some time now.The reason no one notices is because, so far, it hasn't been any big deal. Most people even like the changes made thus far, they just don't realize that they are part of PPACA.

Such as the raising of the age limit for dependents to 26 and the elimination of pre-existing condition clauses. But none of that is what is at issue here. The constitutionality of it, especially the individual mandate, (An idea championed by the GOP from 1993* until 2008, BTW.), is.

*Individual mandate source;

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/v...ourceID=004182

"The concept of the individual health insurance mandate is considered to have originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate."

Regards,
Dave

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

None of that is relevant to it's constitutionality.

And implementation has been underway for some time now.The reason no one notices is because, so far, it hasn't been any big deal. Most people even like the changes made thus far, they just don't realize that they are part of PPACA.

Such as the raising of the age limit for dependents to 26 and the elimination of pre-existing condition clauses. But none of that is what is at issue here. The constitutionality of it, especially the individual mandate, (An idea championed by the GOP from 1993* until 2008, BTW.), is.

*Individual mandate source;

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/v...ourceID=004182

"The concept of the individual health insurance mandate is considered to have originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate."

Regards,
Dave

Large parts of the ACA were written by the Heritage Foundation.

Another good thing in the ACA that is already in affect is the 80/20 cost loss rule. In other words, insurance companies can no longer siphon off 30 to 45% of your premium to pay outrages salaries and bonus'. No more 3 million dollar office remodels and no more gold plated toilets in the corporate jet. The split is even more severe for the large insurance companies at 85/15.

Conservative pundits who follow this court expect the justices to rule in favor of the Obama administration. If they don't you can expect a huge rate hike in your health insurance premiums and possibly a return to Business as usual for the health insurance giants.

Talk about radical SCOTUS rulings, how about Madison v. Mabry in 1803. The court gave itself the power to judge the constitutionality of legislation coming out of Congress. It was the biggest power grab this country has ever seen.

I challenge anyone here to show me where, in the Constitution, the SCOTUS is charged with the power to rule on the constitutionality of any legislation coming out of Congress. The 1803 ruling made the SCOTUS the most powerful branch of government in the US. Nine unelected people can kill legislation passed by our duly elected members of Congress. The correct remedy to kill Obamacare is to put folks in Congress that will repeal the law.

There is a solution to the SCOTUS problem. Also, no were in the Constitution is there a clause setting the number of justices at nine. I say appoint eleven more justices to the court immediately. This will help to offset the activist nature of the court and give it some balance.

[bhunter]

[QUOTE=wgrr;95545]

Talk about radical SCOTUS rulings, how about Madison v. Mabry in 1803. The court gave itself the power to judge the constitutionality of legislation coming out of Congress. It was the biggest power grab this country has ever seen.
[quote]

Marbury v. Madison was a beautiful case IMHO. John Marshall was clearly brilliant in his solution. A classic fork as they say in chess.

I challenge anyone here to show me where, in the Constitution, the SCOTUS is charged with the power to rule on the constitutionality of any legislation coming out of Congress. The 1803 ruling made the SCOTUS the most powerful branch of government in the US. Nine unelected people can kill legislation passed by our duly elected members of Congress. The correct remedy to kill Obamacare is to put folks in Congress that will repeal the law.

Overall, I think the SC has done an admirable job of balancing the interests of the majority against the rights of the minority. I didn't hear many on the left complaining about SC decisions when the Warren Court was at full tilt expanding the rights of the accused and minorities. Has there been mistakes? Sure, Dredd Scott is a classic, but overall the SC has done an excellent job.

There is a solution to the SCOTUS problem. Also, no were in the Constitution is there a clause setting the number of justices at nine. I say appoint eleven more justices to the court immediately. This will help to offset the activist nature of the court and give it some balance.

Now you're sounding like FDR. There are better ways to solve the perceived problem, namely, writing better legislation that doesn't entail breaching liberty.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Now you're sounding like FDR. There are better ways to solve the perceived problem, namely, writing better legislation that doesn't entail breaching liberty.

Good for him. There are worse people to sound like than FDR, one example would be Santorum.

Tell me, how is your 'liberty" being "breached"? Let's say it is; Even at that, Washington acknowledged that sometimes liberty must be curbed to serve the national interest. And I happen to agree. Maintaining the status quo does not serve the national interest, and I see no other ideas coming from the GOP. And if they did sprout one, all it would take is concurrence from the President and they would disown and villify it. Why?

Because none of this has anything to do with what's good for the country. It's all about Republicans keeping their jobs and advancing their warped social agenda.

Dave

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by wgrr

Large parts of the ACA were written by the Heritage Foundation.

Let's let Stuart Butler answer:

http://www.heritage.org/research/com...macare-mandate

[bhunter]

Is anyone else reading the oral SC oral arguments on ACA? I'm slowly meandering my way through them. It's very interesting, but slow because I get detoured by the case references. I've discovered that I actually like RBG's questions because they tend to be more direct than the case allusions used by the others. Currently, I'm only half way through day 1.

[merrylander]

At least the opponents picked the right attorney - Cat's ass. The amusing part is seeing all those goood catholics out there opposing it. Excuse me, is it a kindly thing to do - denying 30 million of your fellow citizens health insurance?

I am so glad that the bill's opponents want to protect the rights of the freeloaders whose healthcare to the tune of $116 billion a year is picked up by those of use who buy insurance. If they repeal this bill maybe they should aalso repeal St. Ronnies bill that stipulates that hospitals must treat people whether they can pay or not.

[piece-itpete]

I'm no scowler, but I'd be surprised if the court ruled for limitations on government power.

Wgrr, Jefferson agrees with you 9 unelected kings, er I mean justices, no check save refusal of enforcement...

Pete