Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[Judge Jude]

the nonsense being spewed by the Republicans and by the Obama administration

http://factcheck.org/2012/03/misleading-on-premiums/

"An RNC ad falsely implies that the federal health care law is responsible for all of the $1,300 average increase in family coverage premiums last year. But at the same time, the Obama administration makes the misleading claim that families “could save up to $2,300″ on health care costs per year in the future by buying insurance through exchanges called for by the law."

[onejayhawk]

the nonsense being spewed by the Republicans and by the Obama administration

http://factcheck.org/2012/03/misleading-on-premiums/

"An RNC ad falsely implies that the federal health care law is responsible for all of the $1,300 average increase in family coverage premiums last year. But at the same time, the Obama administration makes the misleading claim that families “could save up to $2,300″ on health care costs per year in the future by buying insurance through exchanges called for by the law."

Truth in politics, see oxymoron.

J

[nullnor]

i don't think it's constitutional. but in the end it's not about politics, economics, laws, jobs. it's about improving quality of life. 'If that is granted, all else follows'.

[Judge Jude]

I think Kennedy will find the proper path here.
I'd expect him to have a concurring opinion that upholds the law that is more cogent than what's offered by the four liberals (or at least three of the conservatives, with Roberts as a wild card).

The difference is that I don't think that Kennedy walks into this argument needing to find a rationalization for what he already feels emotionally. He'll lean toward upholding (as judges should), and give a better explanation than the rest, I think.

Reaching a conclusion and then coming up with a "reasoning" by any means necessary hardly makes for good law....

[Lucky]

I think your boner for Kennedy is unwarranted but he does come out of these proceedings sounding like the voice of reason. Scalia is truly going full throttle off the deep end. I think he's secretly trying to court Michelle Bachmann with his insane rhetoric.

I felt a little embarrassed listening to the taped recordings of Scalia, not only in my position of being a judge, but as a lawyer and citizen as well.

[B-Fly]

I think Kennedy will find the proper path here.
I'd expect him to have a concurring opinion that upholds the law that is more cogent than what's offered by the four liberals (or at least three of the conservatives, with Roberts as a wild card).

The difference is that I don't think that Kennedy walks into this argument needing to find a rationalization for what he already feels emotionally. He'll lean toward upholding (as judges should), and give a better explanation than the rest, I think.

Reaching a conclusion and then coming up with a "reasoning" by any means necessary hardly makes for good law....

Justice Kennedy does that as much as anyone on the Court. I hope you're right as to how he'll vote, but when he does join the liberals, his reasoning is generally more strained because he doesn't have a consistent judicial philosophy in the same way. The liberals don't need to rationalize a reason to do what they want to do emotionally because their judicial philosophy - living Constitution, consistently broad interpretation of federal powers in the Commerce Clause and Spending Clause - clearly permits them to come down the way they come down.

[onejayhawk]

Justice Kennedy does that as much as anyone on the Court. I hope you're right as to how he'll vote, but when he does join the liberals, his reasoning is generally more strained because he doesn't have a consistent judicial philosophy in the same way. The liberals don't need to rationalize a reason to do what they want to do emotionally because their judicial philosophy - living Constitution, consistently broad interpretation of federal powers in the Commerce Clause and Spending Clause - clearly permits them to come down the way they come down.

That is the most damning statement I have ever read for judicial liberalism.

J

[Moonlight J]

It's not the law, ElD, it's who wrote it. IOKIYAR....

[Erik]

The GOP of the late '80s bears little resemblance to the GOP of today, so that doesn't surprise me at all.

[Fresno Bob]

Congress and the SC should have the exact same medical benefit program that we give to veterans through the VA

[Moonlight J]

Congress and the SC should have the exact same medical benefit program that we give to veterans through the VA

Congressional members are eligible to receive care at military hospitals

House and Senate members (but not their families) also are eligible to receive care at military hospitals. For outpatient care, there is no charge at the Washington, D.C., area hospitals (Walter Reed Army Medical Center and National Naval Medical Center). Inpatient care is billed at rates set by the Department of Defense.

[chancellor]

The GOP of the late '80s bears little resemblance to the GOP of today, so that doesn't surprise me at all.

True dat. In reality, the original universal health care plan was proposed by the Nixon administration. Much of what his admin recommended was mirrored, though updated, by the Clinton administration in their swing at broader federally funded health care insurance.

[Erik]

In reality, the original universal health care plan was proposed by the Nixon administration.

Yep, and Congress didn't pass it because Nixon and Kennedy were at odds over the details. Kennedy said that was the greatest regret of his legislative career.

[onejayhawk]

Yep, and Congress didn't pass it because Nixon and Kennedy were at odds over the details. Kennedy said that was the greatest regret of his legislative career.

I can just imagine the kind of hay Ronald Reagan would ahve made from it in 1976. He almost got the nomination without it.

J

[PaleoMan]

The slippery slope logical fallacy being used by the most erudite (supposedly) judges in the country is amusing and strange.

As for what comes next: it's pretty clearly the government forcing us to eat broccoli, right Senhor Scalia?

Actually, it's quite clear and elementary. Once the sacrosanct firewall between independent citizen and the government complex is completely eradicated, we may as well abolish the electoral process completely, since technically we would all become beholden to the whims of the state. Anyone without a partisan bent can clearly see that the individual mandate featured in Obamacare embodies the worst elements of crony corporatism.

Furthermore, I find it extremely amusing that the supposedly infallible White House and the democrat majority at time (1) did not include the severability clause which could have salvaged a portion of Obamacare but they were hellbent on ramming the bill through with Kennedy's replacement (2) placed a premium on the individual mandate, since it was the only way to entice the insurance monopoly to offer them greater coverage for pre-existing conditions and temporary price controls. Once again, like the old saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.