Thread: Serious question about "Obamacare"

Yeah, I agree that it is a hard call until June.

They can eliminate one aspect of the law, like the compulsory requirement ( which IS unconstitutional ), but then implement the rest with a "opt out" clause.

Originally Posted by hutash

I don't think anybody knows which way this is going to go. It can go either way, so we are going to have to wait until June for an opinion.

All we know is that Scalia, Thomas and Alito will rule against it and will prolly draft one opinion. Roberts and Kennedy are wild cards. Whichever way this goes, I wouldn't be shocked if there will be 3-4 even 5 opinions issued. I thought Scalia's remark about the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) regarding a full review of the 2700 pages of the law was funny at first blush, but a sad commentary that he doesn't feel like reading the whole thing. Hey, Tony, that's what you get paid for. There's no page restrictions.

Originally Posted by Moeghoul

but a sad commentary that he doesn't feel like reading the whole thing. Hey, Tony, that's what you get paid for. There's no page restrictions.

As was pointed out yesterday, the law, sans mandate, is a very different law than the one passed by the legislature. For some reason that escapes me, the legislature chose not to include a sever-ability clause. Meaning they intended the legislation to stand or fall as a whole. So for the court to implement that law, after striking down the mandate, is for SCOTUS to implement law that is different from what congress passed. That falls outside of their job description.


To re craft the law, without the mandate, is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

As was pointed out yesterday, the law, sans mandate, is a very different law than the one passed by the legislature. For some reason that escapes me, the legislature chose not to include a sever-ability clause. Meaning they intended the legislation to stand or fall as a whole. So for the court to implement that law, after striking down the mandate, is for SCOTUS to implement law that is different from what congress passed. That falls outside of their job description.


To re craft the law, without the mandate, is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary.

Valid point. It's already known that legislators don't read the entirety of bills, I just think once you get to the highest court, it doesn't reflect well on the justice to make that statement even though it was pretty funny. Severability was probably excluded since the thrust of the law is get everyone on board to help mitigate medical costs for higher risk people and get the uninsured some basic coverage.

Severability was left out because after Kennedy got sick, the dems couldn't railroad through anything totalitarian thing they wanted and had to cobble together a steaming pile of crap for obamas signature legislation

I'm not surprised you miss scalia's point entirely

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

Severability was left out because after Kennedy got sick, the dems couldn't railroad through anything totalitarian thing they wanted and had to cobble together a steaming pile of crap for obamas signature legislation

I'm not surprised you miss scalia's point entirely

My understanding is that a severability clause would’ve been added in conference between the chambers. Since there was no conference everything had to be done thru reconciliation after the House passed the Senate bill. I'm not surprised that you'd blame it on Kennedy.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

As was pointed out yesterday, the law, sans mandate, is a very different law than the one passed by the legislature. For some reason that escapes me, the legislature chose not to include a sever-ability clause. Meaning they intended the legislation to stand or fall as a whole. So for the court to implement that law, after striking down the mandate, is for SCOTUS to implement law that is different from what congress passed. That falls outside of their job description.


To re craft the law, without the mandate, is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary.

Agreed. The SCOTUS shouldn't be crafting new legislation. If it goes down it goes down. I think it's bad for both parties. This would demonstrate that partisan politics on both sides have rendered the SCOTUS nothing more than a political body open to influence by outside parties much like our elected politicians. Only these folks are appointed for life. Single payer here we come...like it or not.

Old long johnson. OLD LONG JOHNSON!!!

Don't know who said this but pretty much nailed it IMO:

Let me get this straight . . . We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!
'What the hell could possibly go wrong?'

Originally Posted by powpig

Don't know who said this but pretty much nailed it IMO:
'What the hell could possibly go wrong?'

Exactly, we're already at the bottom so its all uptrend from here.