Obamacare Has Another
Rendezvous With SCOTUS
American Spectator,
by
David Catron
Original Article
Posted By: MissMolly,
3/3/2020 4:35:32 AM
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear another constitutional challenge to Obamacare. The court’s latest rendezvous with the “Affordable Care Act” became all but inevitable in late 2018 when U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled, in Texas v. United States, that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and inseverable from the rest of the statute. The latter defect, he held, required him to strike down the entire law. The case inevitably landed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld O’Connor’s ruling on the mandate, but remanded the severability question back to him for further “analysis.” This satisfied neither the Republicans who filed the original lawsuit nor Obamacare’s Democratic defenders.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 3/3/2020 6:23:40 AM (No. 335206)
"It’s probable that the court ... would like to correct past fumbles like ... and ensure that they have finally heard their last Obamacare case."
I have this image of Frankenstein's monster,it's charge running down, being brought to the SCOTUS and, after some deliberation, Roberts attached a cable to it's neck charging posts and connected them to a car battery that it had to carry around. It still did a lot of damage in its mindless shambling around; a great liberal hulk.
In 2017, Congress stole the monster's battery. Now it is being wheeled back into Roberts' operating theater. Hopefully he has wised up enough to take the bone Congress has passed him and refuse to supply another battery. Let it die.
The SCOTUS has a lot of inappropriate liberal law making it has carried out to undo. Once Trump is reelected and RBG has been replaced, they can get to it with a vengeance. You can be sure that advocates will be sure the right cases get put before it.
13 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Ida Lou Pino 3/3/2020 6:51:35 AM (No. 335225)
Roberts should recuse himself - - on the grounds that he's a blithering idiot.
37 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
F15 Gork 3/3/2020 6:59:49 AM (No. 335236)
Roberts will once again find law where none exists.....
26 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
ROLFNader 3/3/2020 7:27:36 AM (No. 335268)
Putting John Roberts on the Supreme Court is but another day that will live in infamy.
15 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
FunOne 3/3/2020 8:16:22 AM (No. 335326)
Yes, #4, his appointment was very sloppy on the part of G W Bush. Compounded by appointing him Chief Justice to boot! Both W and his dad just wanted to avoid any conflict with the democrats over judicial appointments, so we got the mess that President Trump is in the process of fixing.
19 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
lakerman1 3/3/2020 8:59:53 AM (No. 335371)
I offer this legal analogy once a year, to demonstrate how the drug-addled reasoning of Chief Judas John Roberts can be applied to almost everything .
If Congress passed a bill requiring all auto tires to be white sidewalled, which are twice as expensive as blackwalled auto tires, and the bill, signed into law by President Rogue's Gallery, contained a penalty for anyone buying blackwalled tires, chief Judas Roberts, using his legal reasoning in the Obolacare cases, would have to rule that the auto tire law is constitutional.
Here is why that is so.
First, purchasing auto tires in a part of interstate commerce.
second, the U.S. Constitution gives congress the power to impose taxes and to control interstate commerce. But a tax can be called a penalty but still be a tax., congress did not intend to abolish wheels. not everyone needs wheels, but most people do.
5 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Strike3 3/3/2020 9:19:52 AM (No. 335409)
John McCain will be unavailable for consultation this time around. Which was worse, Bathhouse Barry making an under-the-table fortune from the health insurance industry to completely ruin healthcare or McCain resuscitating a mangled corpse that was declared DOA to spite the newly-elected POTUS? This was the chief legacy for both of them. Roberts was just a complicit coward who caved to the pressure.
9 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
mathman 3/3/2020 9:29:57 AM (No. 335424)
Stare Decisis. Obamacare has been ruled Constitutional. So what if it was a backroom deal and they had to pass it to find out what was in it. So what if bribes were paid (Louisiana Compromise) to get the votes. So what. So what. So what. So what if Chief Justice Roberts found an emendation of a penumbra which made a tax not a tax. Saying it did not make it so.
Obamacare is THE linchpin to Obama's failed eight years (!) as Teleprompter Reader-in-Chief.
He will be remembered alongside Millard Fillmore. If he is remembered at all.
A hundred years from now the missing school records, Illinois records, Indonesia records, driver's license, birth certificate, and social security card will be public records.
I will not live to see it.
10 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
hisself 3/3/2020 10:04:18 AM (No. 335474)
The ATF ruled that bump stocks were not restricted or illegal, as they did not modify a firearm to make it fire automatically. (Even with a bump stock, the trigger needs to be pulled for each shot). Then, the ATF decided that they did constitute a modification to turn a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic one, even though it still requires that the trigger be pulled to fire a shot.
Yesterday, the SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal of the lower court's decision that the plain wording of the GCA of 1933 did not mean what it says, ie, an automatic weapon is one which fires multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger.
So why would we expect the SCOTUS to overturn obamacare just because that is what the law says?
3 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
NotaBene 3/3/2020 11:00:46 AM (No. 335556)
Waiting for Ruth.
1 person likes this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 3/3/2020 11:03:45 AM (No. 335562)
When the members of the Court started dabbling openly in politics, they began to destroy the Court's credibility.
4 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
lakerman1 3/3/2020 11:35:44 AM (No. 335598)
second post apologies, but, #9, I believe you meant the Missouri Compromise and the Louisiana Purchase.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "MissMolly"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)