Supremes Take Aim At ObamaCare
Can it be?
The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they
thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual
mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall
with it.
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had
determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared
unconstitutional.
"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy
said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various
insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.
I'm holding my breath...hoping.
ReplyDeleteIf socialized medicine is ground under the heel of the SCOTUS, how will that impact JEM's chances in November? Will he be viewed as an utter failure by his base, or will he be sent back to finish the job {shudder}?
lady red, I don't think the Supreme Court decision will make a whole lot of difference in the upcoming election. But who knows? There are ~68% of Americans who don't want Obamacare/want it repealed. I figure those in that 68% who are Dems will probably stick with Obama no matter what happens with the decision.
ReplyDeleteWe need to get this primary business over with, sign up Rubio or West for veep and then proceed to mop the floor with Obama.
ReplyDeleteThe dems are already spinning the upcoming decision, sensing which way the wind is blowing. Not to mention all sides seem to agree that the solicitor general is doing a less than stellar job with his arguments.
This awful bill will be struck down, either by the Supremes or by the new president and Congress. The main thing that will defeat Obama IMO is the price of gas. It's still going up here and could be as high as $4.50 in a couple weeks. We're at least 20 cents over the natl average in Oh-so-blue-and-clueless Washington.
BTW, did anyone catch that grandstanding idiot in a hoodie on the floor of the House today? That was quite a show.
I just had to find out who you were refering to florrie (the guy in the hoodie)and have just watched the video.
DeleteI am gobsmacked! Is that really the calibre of public representation in the American government?
Disturbing to say the least. Oh, and hilarious :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat fucker is Bobby Rush, a Black Panther founder and now Congressman from Illinois/Chicago.
DeleteI agree with Rubio or West as President...er, I mean VP. They are MY tribe!
ReplyDeleteThe price of gas may be JEM's Waterloo. I sure as heck hope so. The price of hamburger and produce might come into play too. Groceries prices are ridiculous!
The guy with the hoodie? Idiocy. I loved it. I count it as a "win" in the conservative column. :)
I only hope that, whoever is nominated, they use Barry0's own words against him in their ads, especially when he railed against GW for the high gas prices, while standing in front a a station price sign showing about 1/2 the current prices.
DeleteAND the time on the Senate floor when he berated Hillary for including a 'personal mandate' in her health insurance scheme.
The man is a fraud, as well as a failure, and it scares the crap out of me that Romney seems content to go down John McCain's losing 'no personal attacks on the clean and articulate negro' path.
Forgive the bad grammar above. I meant "grocery".
ReplyDeleteThe one possible problem with declaring the whole of Obama's Health Debacle unconstitutional, is that if it is done, then the Congress will go back and try their very damnedest to bull through a Single-Payer (i.e., REAL Socialized Medicine, with all the bad that pertains to it) and that will almost certainly be declared constitutionally valid, because it will be paid for with (massively) increased taxes under the label of 'Medicare For All'.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying I don't want the current law scrapped, BUT that we dare not have it scrapped and then not elect a Republican Congress to be sure we do not go down the potholed road of Great Britain's National Health Service.
Dances ... if only the mandate is stricken, what you suggest can occur by default, as all the insurance companies go tits up due the remaining requirements of the ACA being unsustainable with affordable rates.
DeleteI agree wholeheartedly DWT.
ReplyDeleteGood lord, I hope not.
ReplyDeleteUgh.
I'm glad I'm not a 20-something (or younger). Their economic future (and freedom) looks rather bleak.
Lady red, I SO agree with you that the grandstanding is a plus. Whenever I hear the looney left's outrageous claims I think "keep talking, dummies, you're helping us!".
One should really not try to guess S Ct outcomes from oral argument. It's quite common--very common--for justices to ask tough questions to draw out nuances, including in directions in which they are not leaning. After all, the issue before the Court has already been deeply briefed, and the justices know that their opinion will have to answer objections and anticipate issues.
ReplyDeleteI am, however, very glad to see that more and more people are waking up to the very real fact that we are ruled by a type of monarch council of nine.
Senator Rubio speaks Spanish on the floor of the U.S. Senate. If that is the new conservatism, leave me out! If I have to live in a Latino country, I'd rather just move to Mexico, where the food is better, the people friendlier and everyone knows already that the government is a lair of liars and crooks........
Jourdan ... I agree with you, we ought not count unhatched chickens just yet. The ACA contains no severability clause, so what the "council of nine" will do with it is still up in the air ... e.g., if one part is struck it should all be struck (no severability defined in ACA)... however, if the Nine "make law" by striking only part of the ACA, then the baby goes out with the bathwater.
DeleteThe rest: This is about an election ... one either won or lost. I believe Romney is also fluent in Spanish, and he'd better damn well make use of it during the campaign. Votes are votes. We cannot change a damn thing until Obama is defeated and both houses are won. So, F' it, I say ... by any means necessary, forward!
Jourdan, we'll have to agree to disagree about Rubio. I personally don't care if he spoke Spanish on the Senate floor. If he shows up in a hoodie, THEN I'll have a problem. I think he's a patriotic, conservative American who cherishes the same values I do.
ReplyDeleteI believe in America as a melting pot. As long as people assimilate, fight for our country, work hard, revere our flag, and mow their lawn, I'm good.
I've been to Mexico. I don't recommend it.
Absolutely agree, lady red.
ReplyDeleteRubio represents what politicians can be, he gives me so much hope for the future. I don't care if he spoke Spanish either, so what?
I think we all understand that the justices are questioning, not deciding the case and that in their questions don't always tip their hat to how they will rule.
But we can always hope :-)
ReplyDeleteRubio starts out in the same hole as every other politician in my book. The overriding reason to distrust him is that his lips move. The language he moves them to is a second order consideration.
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm pretty much that cynical these days.
That said, I'm working on the talking point that "Latino" is not an authentic category at all, but is just a social construct, created by the Ivy League elites in their capacity as Masters of the Global Plantation.
Where else in the world does "Latino" even exist other than in the discourse of white elite American racial dispensation?
That's a little harsh, isn't it, lewy? I just thought it's a description of people living in the US from Latin America? I mean, you can say the same thing about Chicano. Well, maybe that's your point, lol. It reminds me of a scene from Annie Hall...
ReplyDeleteGosh, now that got me watching clips from that movie, here's one of my favorites!
ReplyDeleteLove that scene. The movie came out when I was in high school. My girlfriend at the time would dress up as Annie Hall - shirt, wide tie, vest, khakis, whole outfit... rocked it, as I recall...
DeleteSorry, lady red, I didn't mean to derail your thread. Good night to all.
ReplyDeleteWhat was this thread about? (Scrolls back up...) Oh yeah, health care.
DeleteVery simple. Obamacare will never be implemented for any length of time. We'll go broke too fast for that. If it doesn't get struck down the bond market rebels that much quicker.
Oh heck yeah! It's harsh as anything! But the harshness is not aimed at Mexicans or Puerto Ricans or Cubans, but at the social engineers who created the "Latino" brand for their own political purposes. I'm pretty sure at least some of those social engineers are white.
ReplyDeleteMy point is to use some of the rhetoric and strategy of the Left against them. Blowback.
I really like the whole "Global Plantation" meme. Actually it would fly pretty well with actual foreigners - Brazilians in particular are completely fed up with Europe and the US and their "climate change" BS and monetary debasement. They see the "diversity" initiatives of the Euro and American elite as BS. Yes, the Washington Consensus comes in many colors but ultimately preaches a bunch of "do as we say not as we do" nonsense.
My caveat - my "out" - is that what I'm sketching is a talking point, a conversational gambit to baffle and confound reflexively liberal acquaintances over a beer.
Nothing trips my "off" switch faster than the word "diversity". I also tune out when someone prefaces a point with a qualifier such as "Latino", "Chicano" or "other country/continent" *hyphen* American. It's all baloney, and as lewy observed, a construct of self-appointed "elite" lefties as well as profe$$ional race baiters. We're all Americans, period.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I'm fairly sure that some of the social engineers that brought us the destruction of the American family, zoos...er, I mean "projects" to house minorities, and cradle-to-grave handouts are white.
I hear you, lady red! As I've said here many times before, I'm against the use of any hyphenated American designations. That's our problem, all these divisive little self-interest groups get us absolutely nowhere. I do remember back in the day when people started promoting this as "celebrating diversity". That concept has been a total failure but it's like we can't stop doing it. Now we have this ridiculous "white-Hispanic" tag...
ReplyDeleteIt's effed up, whoever is behind it. I guess it must be the white elitists as lewy said...just so long as we all agree it's the white elitist liberals :-)
This whole crazy mess is why I play with "labels", on my school paperwork, employment paperwork, and censuses. And I enjoy it!
ReplyDeleteSome poor genealogist 200 years from now will be pulling their hair out wondering "WTF?". It's my way of sticking a finger in their "social engineering" eye.
Will it come back to haunt me? Maybe, maybe not. Everything I've ever claimed is true if they want to go back through enough generations, so pfft. Pfft! :)
Effers.
OK here's your vocab lesson for the day: "Latino" is a demonym.
ReplyDeleteNotice that the usage and definition is a product of the USG. I rest my case.
(I should note that there is another usage of the term in Spain; I have no comment on the terms of self-identification within the demographic of South and Central Americans in Spain).
Lewy, thank you for the link. I'm heartened that many "Latinos" are rebelling against the made-up tag. It's idiotic.
ReplyDeleteMade up or not, whatever one wants to call them, they are scheduled to make up a majority of American citizens by 2030, and I would guess as that was 2050 a mere 10 years ago, the real year is quite a lot sooner than that.
DeleteAmerica defeated by fertility rather than military. Who'd thunk it.
DeleteSo Jourdan...do you think there's any way to rein in the Supremes back to what the founders envisioned? Has judicial activism gone on too long to turn the clock back?
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is a problem here, to be honest. I think Marbury v. Madison was rightly decided. Our system retains a sharp check on majorities, and without a powerful body to tell the majority, duly elected and all, "NO!" and have it stick, there are no minority view rights.
DeleteWhat IS missing however, is that once that Court is divorced from the republican system, traditional American customs and norms and the Common Law--all of which have occurred--it then becomes simply one method amongst many possible, and not the best, of left-wing rule.
I hope that makes sense. To put it another way, the Court is working as intended, I think, but in the wrong context, rending it a completely different beast altogether.
It makes a lot of sense, thanks for your input. Although I have to go look up Marbury v. Madison, I have no clue what that was about...
DeleteThis is where I miss my FiL, who was a principled and brilliant lawyer (yes, he was a Dem but the "Scoop Jackson variety). His practice was active until the year he died (2005, at 81) and he stayed current on major decisions and changes in the law. He loved to talk "legalese" and would have been happy to explain a decision in layman's terms. Much better than googling but that will have to do.