Obama Care, How Will Be Judged On Thursday?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Well sir, in two days we'll see the extent of your powers of clairvoyance.

I must say it runs contrary to the vast majority of legal belief at present, but having seen what i have seen over the years, I'll not be surprised either way.

I'm wrong about 90% of the time. I mastered the art of humility early, and remain the champion to this day.

The rational me sez Obama's already got the WORD from Kagan et al, and knows its doomed. But the Crazee Fucking Perfesser in me warns of a hit in the stern from a hamster hung, closet do-gooder on the court. If I'm right, I'm a marvel; if I'm wrong, I win too!

 

[BoyNextDoor]

You may not realize this, but this is the first time in history the Federal Government has ever tried to foist an economic mandate on American citizens.

Seriously - do you just sit there and make this shit up?

Not true. A popular example of a "foisted economic mandate" is the mandate that able bodied men buy guns. There was also healthcare insurance mandated for sailors.

Harvard Law School professor Einer Elhauge writes that the very first Congress, in 1790, passed a law that included a mandate that ship owners buy medical insurance, but not hospital insurance, for their seamen. That Congress included 20 framers and was signed by another framer: President George Washington. In 1792, Washington signed another bill, passed by a Congress with 17 framers, requiring that all able-bodied men buy firearms. In 1798, Congress, with 5 framers, passed a federal law that required seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves.

Why weren’t these examples cited by the Solicitor General during his oral argument?

The Atlantic has a great article The Secret History of Guns that also talks about it

 

[Wok]

Which leads to another question if the mandate is struck down, and assuming the law crumbles. On the GOP's page regarding repeal and replacing it, http://www.gop.gov/indepth/pledge/healthcare, this part of the plan is interesting:

Expand Health Savings Accounts
Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are popular savings accounts that provide cost effective health insurance to those who might otherwise go uninsured. We will improve HSAs by making it easier for patients with high-deductible health plans to use them to obtain access to quality care. We will repeal the new health care law, which prevents the use of these savings accounts to purchase over-the-counter medicine.

How will this be enforced? Where will the money come from for that? If this is voluntary, why this in the first place?

 

[Wrong Element]

I hope the court does the right thing, although there's no trust on my behalf that they will strike it down. If the law stands, and in particular the 'individual mandate' there will be no limits as to what the government can force us to buy, and it will not matter what the political leaning of the government is at that point. We will at that point no longer be free.

I addressed this yesterday. The major limit on what the government can do is the same as it has always been: elections.

If Obama's law is truly unpopular, it can always be reversed by future Congresses and Presidents. I think the GOP knows that once some of its provisions go into effect, and people notice that their grandparents aren't being taken out behind the hospital and shot like Sarah Palin said they would be, the ACA will get a whole lot less controversial (as happened with Medicare), which is why they went running to the courts.

The notion that the passage of laws you don't like is the same thing as living in a tyranny is ridiculous. Funny thing, your side doesn't always get to win!

 

[RoryN]

The notion that the passage of laws you don't like is the same thing as living in a tyranny...

That's pretty much the GB right-fringe's manifesto.

The more the thinking American public makes progess, the more they whine like little girls.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

No it's not. George Washington and the first Congress set a mandate. Sure you're about to argue that it was only on ship owners and thus is like car insurance which while, just like your car insurance argument is a bit vapid but fine, and thus you won't care that six years later they set another mandate, this time on the sailors themselves because you view that as special. Even though I just proved the federal government has foisted an economic mandate on US citizens in the past you need something grander. The second Congress mandated gun purchases for all able bodied males 18 through 45. The Founding Fathers were still present for this.

Since you are obviously wiser than the FF I invite you to argue why they were going against the document they wrote.

Yeah - so I posted to fast. I should have known one of you all would have pretty quickly discussed the other Federal mandates that have been enacted.

Great links to the text of the Act.

 

[unregistered]

 

[coachdb18]

I addressed this yesterday. The major limit on what the government can do is the same as it has always been: elections.

If Obama's law is truly unpopular, it can always be reversed by future Congresses and Presidents. I think the GOP knows that once some of its provisions go into effect, and people notice that their grandparents aren't being taken out behind the hospital and shot like Sarah Palin said they would be, the ACA will get a whole lot less controversial (as happened with Medicare), which is why they went running to the courts.

The notion that the passage of laws you don't like is the same thing as living in a tyranny is ridiculous. Funny thing, your side doesn't always get to win!

Politics and astrophysics have a lot in common it seems, in that both are inclined toward chaos...

 

[Sean Renaud]

No economic mandate has ever been applied to all Americans. Back to school.

By your logic of 18-45 year old whites wasn't being applied to all Americans then ACA isn't either since there are people between the ages of 18 and 26 who won't be subject to this law. No inteligent person would make that argument but there it is.

 

[koalabear]

By your logic of 18-45 year old whites wasn't being applied to all Americans then ACA isn't either since there are people between the ages of 18 and 26 who won't be subject to this law. No inteligent person would make that argument but there it is.

Go get another logic refill from pereg.

 

[miles]

After Monday's decision nothing the SC does will be a surprise.

 

[phrodeau]

No economic mandate has ever been applied to all Americans. Back to school.

There are several economic mandates on Americans. They're usually called "taxes".

 

[coachdb18]

I'm thinking if this thing stands, they go for yet another cut, making it a mandate for everybody to live off their parents HC plan to age 85... won't the hospice be fucking surprised when they get a bill for the whole fucking thing! When Obama gets tired of somebody who doesn't think like he does, he just uses the place for a gulag, and sends them there....

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[miles]

Free meds for Litlibs are on the horizon!

 

[bra_man69]

Free meds for Litlibs are on the horizon!

That's all we need them on meds what great ideas well they come up with

 

[Sean]

After Monday's decision nothing the SC does will be a surprise.

Quick, someone tell Miles that was a victory, he seems to have missed the memo that all the other RWCJ got.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

Did you see the article pinpointing Dementia as being caused by stressfull living in merry old England?

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/328927/Dementia-caused-by-stressful-lifestyle

Anyone that gets science news from a tabloid is a fucking retard.

 

[run_silent]

I'd be mildly surprised based on the tenor of the oral argument, though if stare decisis still means anything to the current Court, upholding the law would be a 9-0 slam dunk.

I am curious about whether the Arizona decision says anything about the way health care is going to go. The "liberals"--I use that term with quotes because it's not like any of them are William O. Douglas--managed to form a coalition with Roberts and Kennedy for a decision that didn't satisfy activists on either side. That might not have been the exact preference of those three (Kagan didn't participate), but that was the only way they could be part of a majority; and the dissenters apparently wanted to push Roberts and Kennedy farther than they thought prudent.

I suspect Scalia, Alito, and Thomas would just as soon throw out the entire law; they can always invent a rationale for doing whatever the hell they want. But I really doubt Roberts and Kennedy would want to go that far. So the question is where you split the difference to get a 6-3 majority upholding only some of the law. And I'm not sure where that would be.

STARE DECISIS
Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports.

An appeal court's panel is "bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions." United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, "It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy . . . 'is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.'" (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.) Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law.

I think you have to bend stare decisis a long way to come to this conclusion. Mandatory healthcare purchase is new law and has no existing law at the federal level.The precedents for forced health care are nil. If you want to find other examples for this stretch you can but none that apply directly.

 

[miles]

That's all we need them on meds what great ideas well they come up with

Maybe it will bring them to their senses.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[loquere]

If it's Obama-care, is it then the bush-war or the bush-recession or hurricane bush?