.
.
.
.
.
Kill Obamacare
Round one. After 30 challenges to Obamacare 3 members of the 6th U.S. Circuit Federal appeals court in Cincinnati, by a split vote, just voted to uphold the Obama health care law. That old saying that one man can make a difference came into play this morning based on the 2-1 split vote to support Obamacare.
Don’t get too excited folks. This issue will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. I don’t think Vegas would give odds against the last call for this major illegal mandate on all Americans.
Quoting from the AP. “A conservative law center had challenged the measure, arguing on behalf of plaintiffs who said potentially being required to buy insurance or face penalties was subjecting them to financial hardship. They warned that the law was too broad and could lead to more federal mandates.
The Thomas More Law Center, based in Ann Arbor, Mich., argued before the panel that the law was unconstitutional and that Congress overstepped its powers.
Judge Boyce F. Martin, appointed by former President Jimmy Carter, wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling.
A George W. Bush appointee concurred; a Ronald Reagan appointee who is a U.S. district judge in Columbus sitting on the panel disagreed. Judges are selected for panels through random draw.”
AP story link. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/health-care/federal-appeals-court-in-cincinnati-upholds-obamas-health-care-overhaul/2011/06/29/AG8tgrqH_story.html
I agree with you completely, Larry. The Circuit Court opinions are irrelevant to the only battle that matters in invalidating this huge federal government overreach. The language of the majority, while not unexpected, was still startling, in essence saying there is nothing the government cannot mandate. Nanny legislators all over the country are salivating today.
Majority opinion based on 1942 US Supreme Court decision that the Congress has the authority to regulate commerce thru the commerce clause
If it’s something that’s generally good for the populace and not based on a business profit model, the curent supremes will use their 5-4 clout to derail it.
Rapscallion. While these lifetime public servants were appointed by presidents of both major parties you can never tell if they will vote down party lines.
Let’s go back and look at Rowe v Wade.
“The Majority Justices must have all been liberals, yes? Perhaps appointed by Democratic presidents? Wrong. Blackmun, who penned the Supreme Court’s final Majority opinion, was appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon. Also appointed by Nixon were Burgher and Powell. So far, three of the seven Justices in the Majority were appointed by a Republican President. But do not forget that Brennan and Stewart were appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. This means that five of the seven Majority Justices were appointed by Republican presidents (Douglas and Marshall were appointed by Democratic Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, respectively). What’s more, take the two Democratic-appointed judges out of the Majority, and you are still left with all-Republican majority of the Court that legalizes abortion.”
That said, president Obama replaced two Supreme Court justices who were each liberals and many of their votes are predictable. Prior to the past presidential election I cautioned GOP voters on the power the next president would have based on the ages of the nine justices. We projected up to three justices departing by 2012.
Hey if they rule out the mandate for health insurance, will mandatory auto insurance be next ?
I don’t personally like either mandate, but I understand it is in everyones best interest in both cases.
But what would the affect be on mandatory insurance laws for auto’s if one mandatory insurance is illegal then all are, I would think.
“While these lifetime public servants were appointed by presidents of both major parties you can never tell if they will vote down party lines.”
You make this statement, and then in the next breath you criticize Obama’s appointees for being predictable. Frankly, there is a complete 4-4 predictability along party lines, with Kennedy being the sole potential swing vote. Are you honestly going to sit there and claim that Scalia, Thomas and Alito don’t vote along party lines?
Let’s face it…the notion that the court is apolitical is a myth.
Oh, and your Roe v. Wade history lesson is from a bygone era. That kind of political unpredictability on the court is long gone.
anon. While serving as president is a powerful post, you can only serve for 8 years. Now lets look at the US Supreme court where you can serve until they carry you out. While we thought we knew where prior justices leaned on their views we have had a few surprises in my lifetime.
My sense is that the next replacement might be for one of the conservative justices. That’s another reason why the GOP must capture the big house on Pennsylvania Ave. next November.
If we look solely at their birthdates, the oldest Justice today, at 78, is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg represents the liberal wing of the court.
The next oldest Justices, at age 75, are Conservatives Anthony Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.
At 51 and 57 respectively, president Obama Liberal Justices Kagan and Sotomayor will be making powerful decisions for many years to come.
And the conservative justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts and Thomas will ALSO be making powerful decisions for many years to come.
In Jeffery Toobin’s book “The Nine”, he talks about Scalia being near retirement. The novelty has worn off for him. Pure speculation on my part, but I’m thinking he delayed his retirement when Obama got elected, but if Obama get’s re-elected, you may see Scalia retire. THAT is the opening progressives need to weaken the conservative faction…Ginsburg is irrelevant, at least as long as Obama is President.
anon. You are correct about Ginsburg. That said, I read the American Jewish community is not happy with your man based on his throwing Israel under the bus. This translates into less campaign contributions and possibly Jewish voters staying home next Nov.
The same test for your man is his failure to tell America how he feels about the gay marriage vote in NY.
He can’t stay on that fence forever.
Throwing Israel under the bus – what an exaggeration. For mentioning the 1968 borders as a model to go back to – that’s been the American and worldwide position forever. AIPAC is NOT the American Jewish community. They’re just the biggest loudmouths.
You’re right on gay marriage. This “evolving” and “grappling” is getting embarrassing.
Vern.
Bernie Madoff told me he will not be sending any money to president Obama this election cycle.
Then again he will not be contributing to any candidate for a while.
Obama takes $$$from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance members but will not show his support when giving speeches. Chicken. So he tosses his alleged beliefs aside for the sake of votes in November
Well this is where politics is in this country at the moment…it’s all about purity tests…on BOTH sides of the aisle.
And Obama isn’t responsible for that.
But lest you forget, Obama WAS a leader in repealing DODT, and the Holder DOJ is no longer defending DOMA. These things don’t happen overnight.
Hey Larry, do you think if Obama sent legislation to the GOP-led House, that legislation would pass?
anon. I am confidant that if Obama sent the GOP a balanced budget and agreed to a plan to cut our 14.3 trillion dollar debt ceiling, without any tax increases, while retaining mortgage & charitable giving deductions, they would sign off. We will fight Obamacare and his restrictive energy policy decisions on another day.
The same applies to entitlements, the real sticking point in cutting costs.
*Legislation making gay marriage legal nationwide, that is.
“without any tax increases…”
There’s that ideological purity I was talking about.
Anon. I knew you would like it.
Hey, by the way. Thanks to conservatives we just got a 11.5 percent cut in our OC sales tax at midnight tonight. Are you pleased?
Actually, no I’m not. I believe that the CA deficit as well as the National deficit is NOT going to be eliminated JUST with spending cuts. Lower taxes, at least in the short term and until a healthy growth rate returns and revenue streams increase, only exacerbates the problem.
anon. for some reason you have not addressed CalSTRS and CalPERS the two huge defined benefit pension groups that will bury our state. Should we raise taxes simply to give more money to SAC to meet their underfunded obligations?
Larry,
You asked me about the tax expiration, not pensions. Why are you acting like I’m avoiding a particular topic?
That said, I believe it ALL needs to be on the table…pension reform, program cuts that won’t disproportionately affect the poor and middle class, and revenue increases.
The need for revenue increases isn’t because I want the unions to get more money…it’s because the debt will NOT be erased ONLY through spending cuts. Revenue increases can be targeted, can’t they? Understand my position now?
anon. Yes I do
The losing party, the More Legal Society, could petition for an enbanc review by the 6th circuit. The risk is that the entire 6th Circuit would sustain the 3 panel decision. The key part of the 66 page decision is that written by the Judge who clerked for Scalia and voted to uphold the trial decision based on his reading of the prior Supreme Court decision of 1942 that upheld the the authority of the Congress under the Commerce Clause.
More could petition the US Supreme Court for review. I doubt that the Court would grant cert in this case only because there are several cases on appeal dealing with the individual mandate and health care reform. In all liklihood the Court will wait until the appellate actions are completed and lump them all together. Most of the trial actions have upheld the Congressional authority to regulate through the Commerce Clause. It will be a very difficult argument to win for those that wish to repeal the individual mandate because of the subsidiary implications for many other similiar issues-auto insurance having been mentioned and the issue of states having the authority to set such regulations as well as Congressional authority.
This is going to be another two years before any resolution. Several more Appellate actions are set to be announced over the next few weeks.