« Craig Sonner: in over his head? | Main | Life on Mars (U.S.) »

April 04, 2012

Comments

Yeah, from a strategic standpoint that seemed to be a pretty poor move.

The preliminary vote was last Friday. Do you think Obama knows the results already?

Otherwise why the threat from him.

[HS: It's possible.]

What will it take to pass it now? Whites seem to be aware the whole thing is a massive transfer of wealth to non-Whites (NAMs). It's basically an anti-White bill, at a time when Whites may be waking up a bit, even if subconsciously.

You really think the Supremes are going to respond to Obama? They would have found it constitutional, but now they're going to find it unconstitutional just to give Obama the middle finger for what he said and to send a message to future Presidents?

Personally I am amused by the hypocrisy of Obama saying the court shouldn't strike down popular legislation at the same time he wants the courts to strike down the DOMA (which passed with a MUCH more powerful majority than Obamacare).

[HS: Yes, I think they would respond in order to demonstrate the Court's authority since Marbury vs Madison (1803).]

Given what Nancy Pelosi has said (the Commerce Clause gives Congress essentially unlimited power) there is no way the SCOTUS could simply affirm.

*The very best* liberals could hope for would be the law to be upheld but for the court to invent some kind of limiting test.

There is no way a majority is going to rubber stamp another branch thinking they have unlimited power.

I dunno, FDR scared the court into upholding his agenda. Todays liberals talk about packing the court again.

"technicality of wording?" You think you're just now coming up with the way that the court will write it's opinion? Do you even read Volokh?

Of course that is how an opinion striking down the mandate would read. Even Randy Barnett (the intellectual force behind the challenge who crystalized the activity/inactivity distinction) admits that it would clearly be constitutional to raise eveyone's taxes and just enact a single payer system. That is completely uncontroversial politically. It is just that it isn't politically viable to do so.

You are also extremely naive if you think that Obama's comments are going to have any real affect. The two justices whose votes are at all up in the air are Roberts and Kennedy. It's laughable to think that Roberts' vote is going to be influenced by that statement. As far as Kennedy, for him it really comes down to whether or not he accepts the "health care is different" argument or finds a limiting principle for this mandate.

Your previous post about how the court today is "truly conservative" completely missed the boat. You can't put a characteristic label on the Supreme Court. The justices all vote separately coming from their own viewpoints. "The Supreme Court hasn’t found a major piece of economic legislation unconstitutional for violating the enumerated powers of Congress since the 1930s." Are you not even aware of Lopez or Morrison?

[HS: Lopez and Morrison were both meaningless criminal statutes. Congress just passes those laws to show they are DOING something about some perceived problem. No one really cares that much that they are unconstitutional.]

Yes, I wonder if there will be another "Robert's Switch."

The fact that it is manifestly unconstitutional doesn't influence the SC since they are relying on the nonsense ruling in Wickard. I can't think of any activity in aggregate that doesn't affect interstate commerce. But then, the Constitution doesn't mention regulating activities that might affect interstate commerce.

If the court finds the mandate constitutional, that would logically imply that Congress can also order foreign nations and Indian tribes to purchase commercial products.

I was shocked that Ginsberg argued that if Congress can force us to pay into Social Security they can force us to buy private health insurance. She can't be that stupid - can she? SC ruled that Social Security is not a retirement plan and is constitutional precisely because it guarantees you nothing and is just "tax and spend."

Obama's remarks are the definition of gaffe. That said, I don't think that they will have much effect. If anything, they will uphold the law and reassert their 'powers' in meaningless dicta.

"You can’t force people to buy health insurance, but it’s OK to raise their taxes and give them free health insurance, so the statute would just need to be revised to put it that way."


Sounds like a tax increase on the middle class. I don't think the dems wanted to try that.

"I was shocked that Ginsberg argued that if Congress can force us to pay into Social Security they can force us to buy private health insurance. She can't be that stupid "

It's not that she's stupid, it's just that she doesn't care. One of the benefits of being a liberal judge who believes in a living, breathing, constantly evolving constitution is that you don’t have to worry about the actual text of the constitution, or the intent of the founders. A living constitution means never having to say you’re sorry. Or, to put it another way, if the law feels good, do it.

That's why the talking heads are discussing how Kennedy or Roberts may vote. Everyone knows that the 4 liberal judges are all going to vote to uphold. And they won't have to spend a second reviewing Wickard or any other case. They want Obamacare, it feels good, so they will support it.

And that's why I disagree with HS and think the judges will uphold the law. They automatically have 4 votes, so they only need to sway, or intimidate, one more.

Lopez & Morrison were Rehnquist era cases in which SCOTUS said Congress couldn't simply tie anything it wanted to "interstate commerce". But I believe in both cases Congress just re-enacted each law with a "hook" to make it constitutional.

>"it’s OK to raise their taxes and give them free health insurance, so the statute would just need to be revised to put it that way. Which probably won’t happen because of the deadlocked political process."


I won't happen for the same reason the Democrats did not take that (clearly constitutional) route when they had sixty votes in the Senate and a big majority in the House - because doing so would be political suicide.

>"The fact that it is manifestly unconstitutional doesn't influence the SC since they are relying on the nonsense ruling in Wickard."

Obamacare is as far beyond Wickard as Wickard was beyond normal Constitutional understanding at the time. Nothing in Wickard says that the federal government may compel people to engage in commerce.

The comments to this entry are closed.