How will they rule today?
8-0 repeal. You have no chance liberals. Worst president of all time.
Jewpreme court will uphold
Only communists have healthcare!NOT IN MY AMERICA!
>>3882293Fuck Yeah Seaking! You see the polls of independents in Oregon? +22% for Romney! IN OREGON.
>mfw the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional
>>3882326>thinks there is a constitutional basis to overrule the individual mandate.
don't worry barry... it's in the bag. of course tip you off before the announcement!
>>3882345>thinks there is a constitutional basis for the mandate to begin withYou don't need a basis to remove laws. You need a basis to pass laws to begin with.>lrn2 enumerated powers
Does it really matter. Socialized insurance is not socialized health care. So some people still won't be able to pay to be healthy, most likely the lower middle class.
The law gets thrown out
Impartial... troololololo
Ask Kennedy. He is the only vote that ever matters.Betweem him and Bernanke, they could fuck up lots of shit. Oh, wait...
>holder is locked up, universal healthcare unconstitutional in the same goddamn day>mfw
>>3882391Actually us poorfags will be finned and/or incarcerated for not being able to afford insurance.
upheld, conservatard tears will be epic
>>3882747That's not even true, and you know it.
"Look. I have many, many friends on MySpace. I pretty much add anybody. I don't know who this ObamaCare is. I denounce [him]. I repudiate. I condemn him. Basically [expletive] him."
I'll be blasting this when they throw it out.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl1mH0DROQM#t=1m25s
>>3882747As if we didn't already have enough expenses. Full-time minimum wage earners with a car pay about $4,500-$6,000 on taxes and other regulatory expenses (car registration, insurance, etc.) before they even spend a cent on themselves, assuming they have anything left and aren't using credit cards at that point.How are they supposed to save any money? How are they expected to say no to gov't handouts (which are really just a way to get the money back that was stolen from them)?
>>3882836Everyone has invested a lot in you by the time you're 18. Take care of yourself you fucking whiner.
It's gonna be sad either way
Moderate here: I personally want the law to be held unconstitutional but would be perfectly fine with it being upheld simply so I could watch Fox News and witnesses the greatest amount of mad ever witnessed on one channel at one time.At least until Holder gets off scot-free. That'll be one of the history books.
I don't give a fuck.I already have a health insurance.Feels good to be rich man
>>3882836first of all, why would you buy a car if you earn minimum wage.second of all, minimum wage workers are disproportionately young and live in households that are above the poverty line.third, if you are driven to take handouts, you are a democratic voter because you won't vote for republicans because they want to take away all your shitit's a political tactic.
I think everybody having health insurance is a good idea, but I also think obamacare is clearly unconstitutional. So it will probably be thrown out.
>>3882767But probably what he has been told and believes. Conservatives eating grandmothers, using axes to chop open nuclear waste barrels and rubbing it in the eyes of newborns, minorities forced to drink gasoline and pay huge prices for it. Science replaced by religion. They don't care about their children, or the state of the planet, or other people, or sustainable societies. Jim Crow laws. Dick Cheney. George Bush. GEORGE BUSH! It's the end of democracy as we know it! Because the media cartoons about conservatives are all true.Help Obama defeat George Bush in 2012 like he did in 2008.
>>3882747Actually you're exempt from the mandate if you're below a certain income. I believe it's about 18,000 a year for a single worker, more for a family. In fact estimates put the actual number of people that will be forced to buy health insurance as a result of this law are about 1/10 of the population - everyone else either has insurance already or is too poor.
>>3882907>clearly unconstitutionalWhat specific provision does it breach?
They OUGHT to rule that it's constitutional. Prior to the oral argument no serious legal analyst thought the supremes could justify the ruling (and being a lawyer myself, I agreed with them). But what oral argument and Scalia's recent dissent in the AZ case makes clear is that certain members of the court are willing to just completely disregard judicial ethics, so I have no fucking clue.Personally, I now suspect Scalia's fervence might be pushing Kennedy to the left (possibly with roberts concurring), so I'll predict a 5-4 or 6-3 upholding, but that's just hope talking.Either way, the supreme court is turning into a joke, and that's not a good thing.
>>3883268Heys ince you're a lawyer, could you answer >>3883236?I'm not that familiar with constitutional law.
>>3883285seconded
>>3883236I was just saying that to fit in
>>3883285>Heys ince you're a lawyer, could you answer >>3883236?>I'm not that familiar with constitutional law.Whichever the fuck one Anthony M. Kennedy sees in his alpha-bits cereal tomorrow morning. It doesn't plainly contradict any of the constitution, as far as I can see.
>>3883268>ruling that the government can force you to buy something due to the very fact that you existFuck that noise.
>>3883268I agree, though it was always on the table to overturn the precedents that establish this action as wholly constitutional. Though if this law is struck down (against the more liberal justices), I'll bet a zillion dollars it will not be due to actually overturning precedent (against, say, Thomas) it will just be Scalia making shit up.
>>3883309>ruling that the government can force you to buy something due to the very fact that you exist>Fuck that noise.Deal with it. The check on the government's power to do that is elections, not the constitution.
It's most likely gonna be thrown out.Because Obama can't do anything right and he's in control of anything and everything.
>>3883309Prick.
>>3883236The commerce clause.
>>3883312>I agree, though it was always on the table to overturn the precedents that establish this action as wholly constitutional. Totally inappropriate for the situation, but yeah that's probably how they'll justify it if they do it.>Though if this law is struck down (against the more liberal justices), I'll bet a zillion dollars it will not be due to actually overturning precedent (against, say, Thomas) it will just be Scalia making shit up.Maybe, but I don't know how you'd get Kennedy on board with something like that. It's going to split hairs pretty fine to be able to get that done.
>>3883305Specifically, I was asking about your opinion on the matter, in regards to the Constitution. We all know that whatever the Supreme Court decision is, it will be a political decision. I was just curious as to what the constitutional basis for opposing Obamacare is.
>>3883330Not according to every supreme court ruling in the period of time since child labor was outlawed.
>>3883330I thought the commerce clause basically allowed the federal government to do whatever it wanted.
>>3883339>Specifically, I was asking about your opinion on the matter, in regards to the Constitution. We all know that whatever the Supreme Court decision is, it will be a political decision. I was just curious as to what the constitutional basis for opposing Obamacare is.Right, well I gave you the short version, which is that the lawsuit is bullshit and there shouldn't be any doubt that the law will be upheld. The arguments that it's unconstitutional are either extremely specious or plainly false. If it's upheld, it's entirely a political outcome.
>>3883236It's an overextension of the commerce clause and takes away self-determinance of purchase as protected by the ninth amendment. It's taking powers not enumerated in the constitution.
>>3883320in reality obama goes golfing.
>>3883349The commerce clause has basically always had the same limitations, but as economies grew, it was more and more difficult to justify economic activity as not broadly affecting interstate commerce.When most everyone is a farmer, it's simple to suppose that what you do on your own farm doesn't affect anyone. When most people aren't farmers, individual decisions by farmers affect an enormous number of people and it's not obvious how this is really contained within a state in a way that would itself be constitutionally acceptable.
>>3882304>>3882304
>>3883316No it's the constitution name the constitutional element that grants the fed supreme control over personal commerce. The fed can only use powers enumerated in the constitution.
>>3883365>self-determinance of purchase as protected by the ninth amendmentwhat about my right to not have my insurance rates go up because you failed to buy it and then went to an emergency room and didn't pay your bill?
>>3883376>No it's the constitution name the constitutional element that grants the fed supreme control over personal commerce. The fed can only use powers enumerated in the constitution.No it's not. Your brainwashed ideas about the commerce clause are destructive and plainly ridiculous. Please crawl back under that rock you came from and leave my legal system alone
>>3883379Oh then the mandate saying that insurers can't keep people out for pre-existing conditions should be struck down if you're going to use that line of logic.It's another mandate that says insurers have to take those with pre-existing conditions so if you have such a right the mandate should be struck down as well.
>>3883385Then elucidate your interpretation of the commerce clause so I can expand my knowledge on the subject.
>www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SDf5_Thqskwatch
>>3883399>[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;Congress has power to regulate commerce. What's complicated about that? The insurance mandate is functionally no different than a tax incentive to buy health insurance, failure to buy health insurance and sponging off people who are already insure is economic activity and furthermore it's necessary to enact a sweeping healthcare law which likewise authorizes it under the necessary and proper clause.
>2012>Not having free healthcare for allSeriously America are you even a real country?
>>3883410Popular judicial philosophies, in order of soundness 1) textualism2) Living Constitution3) OriginalismOr, give me 100 points to assign:textualism - 90 pointsliving constitution - 7 pointsoriginalism - 3 points
>>3882978someone making 19k a year would get fucked HARD by this legislation then, because health insurance will likely cost them several thousand of their 19 thousands each year.In other words, eliminating their ability to save any money at all, keeping the poor poor and enriching the rich and using the law to force people to enrich malicious private corporations and to enter into an involuntary contract with them (slavery).
>>3883467>fuck the middle class
>>3883467Being healthy is an investment. The problem is, America's style of "rationing" (basically, denying most people proper health care through the price system) has led to a situation where popular political discourse doesn't recognize it that way.But it is.
>>3883467This. As soon as you manage to break out of that defined poverty line, you're immediately poorer than the people below it.
>>3883467it's a scaled subsidy. someone at 19k is still being subsidized.
>>3882905>first of all, why would you buy a car if you earn minimum wage.You think someone will hire you if you don't have reliable transportation to and from work?
>>3883465If the meaning of the constitution changes, it's pointless. If you want to change the meaning of the constitution, amend it.
>>3883490>pointlesswhy? The only argument I see for that is "respect for the rule of law", but that's basically countered by the use of an alternate method of judicial interpretation (like, say, textualism).Secondly, you're not the person who fucking wrote it, so you have no idea either.
>>3883316>The check on the government's power to do that is elections, not the constitution.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States>>3883341>Not according to every supreme court ruling in the period of time since child labor was outlawed.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopezhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison
>>3883490I agree. That is why I most strongly support textualism, and most vehemently disagree with originalism and living constitution philosophies.
>>3882290>How will they rule today?Along partisan lines.
>>3883449>is functionally no different than a tax incentive to buy health insuranceNo it's functionally different because it enacts punitive damages on those who refuse to enter a market. The clause gives the govt power to regulate commerce not enact punitive taxes on people for not engaging in a commercial activity.A tax break for ever car you buy is not the same as taxing people for not buying cars.Let's move on to your justification for punitive damages:>failure to buy health insurance and sponging off people who are already insure is economic activityIt's an economic activity created by part of the entire mandate in question. There would be no opportunity for this if the mandate did not require insurers to no longer screen for pre-existing conditions.Is a group of non-consumers responsible for the economic impacts of a group of opportunistic-consumers that affect the prices for consumers? Non-consumers are being held responsible for a government loophole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#MembershipFucking Barry O keeps nominating these women to the SCOTUS. Yay for affirmative action
>>3883544Implying liberals didn't shit bricks when Stevens was replaced by KaganSeriously, Stevens makes Kagan look like Scalia.
>>3883527>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_StatesI'm not talking about judicial review, I'm talking about the meaning of the commerce clause. It simply doesn't constrain like you think it does>lopez>morrisonneither of those disrupt the ACA. You'd have to rule far beyond either of those to get back to times of no child labor law>>3883541>No it's functionally different because it enacts punitive damages on those who refuse to enter a market. The clause gives the govt power to regulate commerce not enact punitive taxes on people for not engaging in a commercial activity.And under your interpretation then it's constitutional because it's a tax. Either way, it's constitutional.> There would be no opportunity for this if the mandate did not require insurers to no longer screen for pre-existing conditions.You're crazy. That's how the system has worked since requiring hospitals to take the uninsured anyways. The mandate created the problem? Bullshit. Even scalia referenced that you'd have to go back to the uninsured/ER laws if you wanted to get rid of the obligation
Kagan is kind of cool, why does she take so much shit?
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/in-the-end/> I believe the mandate will not be invalidated tomorrow. scotusblog folk aren't idiots
>>3883590Because she's the new fish.I reserve my judgement for when she really starts voting on some important shit.
>>3883584how can it be a tax when it only applies to you if you don't do something?
If Antonin Scalia was the only judge on the court, America would be a much better place.
>>3883609how can it be a subsidy to give money to farmers to not grow crops?>>3883598>In the end, you have to make a prediction and take responsibility for it. I believe the mandate will not be invalidated tomorrow. Far less important, I expect the principal opinion will be written by the Chief Justice; a majority of the Court will find it has jurisdiction; and the challenge to the Medicaid expansion will be rejected.Just want to point out he's calling for a 6-3 decision with kennedy, roberts and the liberal wing upholding it, which I already said
They will rule it constitutional, that's the whole reason we've been given a media circus surrounding it, the answer was predetermined from the start.
>>3882290Fuck if I know. It'll be 5-4 either way and depend entirely on Kennedy.If they get rid of the individual mandate, the other provisions are not viable. State governments can still implement their own identical plans, since there is no restriction on them mandating individual purchase of insurance, and Obama can probably order Federal funding for them to do so under the authorization of acts already passed.If they rule for ObamaCare, I expect to hear whining from right wing faggots.If they throw the whole bill out on some grounds, I think it's time to shoot some Supreme Court judges and let Obama appoint responsible people to their jobs.
>>3883620My father would adopt you. No joke.
>>3883620This is an indisputable fact
>>3883626Which I have also said, many times myself. High five and all that.
>>3883626>giving money to citizens=/=taking money from citizens
If this mandate gets ruled constitutional, you can pretty much throw the who enumerated powers/limited government thing out the window.
>>3883630> Fuck if I know. It'll be 5-4 either way and depend entirely on Kennedy.It would surprise me if the provision is struck down or upheld and Roberts doesn't find a 6-3 on this. It would surprise me a lot. Not impossible, but it would surprise me.
>>3883649>whowhole
>>3883644not what I was comparing, moron. A subsidy to farmers for growing nothing is still a subsidy. Just like a tax for buying nothing is still a tax. Damn are you slow.
>>3883628dat NWO
>>3883649>If this mandate gets ruled constitutional, you can pretty much throw the who enumerated powers/limited government thing out the window.You mean your bullshit version of it.
>>3883652>all peopleyeah I wonder what that they meant by that??
>>3883652fucking love that comic strip
>>3883660Yeah, I know. The powers of the federal government are only enumerated to include shit you like. It's a common American problem and one reason I prefer the Westminster way, specifically the post-colonial Canadian and Australian versions where the sovereignty of parliament and authority to act on behalf of good order and government is theoretically unbounded, but in practice held in a fair amount of check.America would be a much better place if it was run by Canadians.
>>3883666It's so awesome to listen to originalists torture the language to justify their bigotry. But then it gets a little sad when you realize they actually have power and people take them seriously.
>>3883658nah, nothing new about it.
>>3883677Originalism is horseshit. It can't be anything other than horseshit. It's wrong on Linguistics 101 grounds, and Scalia in particular should be summoned before a tribunal to answer for his abuse of lexicography, philology, and linguistics.
>>3883584>And under your interpretation then it's constitutional because it's a tax. Either way, it's constitutional.I use tax colloquially, it's punitive damages for not participating in a market under the justification that you are required to enter the market. If it had been a tax enacted to pay for the program it'd be different but there's no legal basis, as far as I see, for saying you must buy health insurance or any other product. Whether or not the mandate comes with punitive damages or not.>You're crazy. That's how the system has worked since requiring hospitals to take the uninsured anyways. The mandate created the problem? Bullshit. Even scalia referenced that you'd have to go back to the uninsured/ER laws if you wanted to get rid of the obligationI'm glad we had this conversation my knowledge on the subject is obviously lacking. But I have a question in that scenario where hospitals have to provide care for the uninsured how does that impact the insurance company in question if they're not backing the costs for the care and the hospital is?
>>3883675>government is theoretically unboundedThat sounds fun. Remind me again why the American Revolution happened?
>>3883689>but there's no legal basis, as far as I see, for saying you must buy health insurance or any other product. Whether or not the mandate comes with punitive damages or not.Huh? Congress wrote the ACA, it's a law. There's your legal basis. Do you mean unconstitutionality? It's the plain interpretation of the commerce clause. Congress shall have the right to regulate commerce. Health insurance is commerce, being in the health care market without insurance affects it, voila.
>>3883652>HURR DURR 2ND AMENDMENT ONLY APPLIES TO MUSKETS!Liberals are so stupid. The 2nd Amendment clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." "Arms" encompasses all weapons: Guns, swords, explosives, etc. I should be able to buy any weapon I can afford. The Founders knew that technology would advance with time. They weren't as stupid as modern-day liberals are.Also, going by the logic of that comic, freedom of speech would not apply to the Internet because it wasn't invented yet. How fucking stupid is that cartoonist anyway? The comic is supposed to ridicule Scalia's interpretation of the "original" Constitution, but then it goes on to imply that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the firearms that were around when it was written. This sort of historical revisionism and leftist interpretation really bugs me.Plus, moot apparently killed /k/, so I need to vent.
>>3883692>Remind me again why the American Revolution happened?Slackers didn't want to pay for a war undertaken in large part for their benefit, and found some terrorists and romantic guerilla warriors to back them up.Really, if limited government and human rights were a major player in the American revolution, you'd have seen a constitution that actually called for such things. Until the late 19th century, the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government, and you had slaves until 1865 for fuckssake! Limited government had fuck all to do with the American Revolution and the powers of state governments were theoretically unlimited until the 20th century. That shit was invented to protect the rights of businessmen from populist measures.
>>3883731>Also, going by the logic of that comic,You understand that the comic is APPLYING scalia's logic, right? Because you're making fun of scalia's originalism right now and agreeing with liberals that the ideology is retarded. It's called parody, moron.
>>3883731> the right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."Including nuclear weapons? Infectious agents? Nerve gas?See, it's the originalists logic that says it should only apply to muskets. The rest of us read the 2nd amendment either as a right to public militias - which is how the courts interpreted it consistently until a few years ago - or as a limited right to arms, subject to such limitations as circumstances might actually call for."Clear language of the constitution" only seems clear to idiots. Reality can fuck your clear interpretation up pretty badly.
>>3883761Erm, no, Scalia doesn't interpret the 2nd Amendment as only applying to muskets. Read the comic again.
>>3883768>>3883731you cannot possibly be this retarded
>>3883768> Scalia doesn't interpret the 2nd Amendment as only applying to musketsBecause Scalia only applies originalist logic selectively. *THAT'S THE POINT*!
>>3883768>Erm, no, Scalia doesn't interpret the 2nd Amendment as only applying to muskets. Read the comic again.sigh. The joke is that if scalia were applying his logic fairly in every case, he'd be LISTENING to the founder's original intents for the 2nd amendment and thus the comic is making fun of him. Scalia's logic is just a smokescreen for "policy outcomes I like"
>>3883785>you cannot possibly be this retardedYes he can. And he actually has a Constitutional right to be that retarded. Welcome to /pol/.
>>3883796I can count to potato
>>3883790> i believe that the founders meant only muskets is an originalist position held by anyone> i believe that arms means weapons made prior to 1776
>>3883826>> i believe that the founders meant only muskets is an originalist position held by anyoneit would be if any of you were intellectually honest.
>>3883765Chemical and biological weapons are forbidden by international law, which the United States has agreed upon. The idea that the 2nd Amendment applies to nuclear weapons is a classic liberal red herring: If nations like Iran or North Korea have trouble acquiring their own nukes, the idea that we'd ever have to worry about a private US citizen making one in his basement is ridiculous. It's an asinine question that's basically the same as asking if the 2nd Amendment allows me to have my own Death Star.>"The rest of us read the 2nd amendment either as a right to public militias - which is how the courts interpreted it consistently until a few years ago - or as a limited right to arms, subject to such limitations as circumstances might actually call for.">implying the 2A doesn't state in plain English "shall not be infringed.">implying the United States wasn't completely without any federal gun control until 1934By "the rest of us" I assume you mean "the rest of us who have no idea what we're talking about."And my point was that the comic makes no sense if it's trying to ridicule "originalism" since the comic is in fact supporting "originalism" when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.>>3883785Please go back to Reddit.
>>3883713I see what you're getting at and this discussion has been very informative. But the effect on non-participants in the health insurance market is indirect. Health insurers aren't required to pay for the hospital visits of the uninsured and hospitals being required to serve the uninsured affects the health insurance market in an indirect manner. I'm trying to come up with a good analogy, it's like if they found out oranges made you all around healthier and some people still refused to eat oranges and the government mandated that everyone buy them because being less healthy affects the health insurance market.
>>3883834Explain the logic to me.
>>3883765Actually, the language of the constitutions is pretty clear as there are numerous text explaining why they did what they did. If you followed the creators original intent, they would in fact allow nukes, ect.
>>3883843>Explain the logic to me.Explain your own logic to you? Have we come to that? Originalism is about using the original intent of the founders to determine what the hell it means. The founding fathers had no idea about nukes and therefore it could not have been their original meaning to include them.So why is originalism different with the 2nd amendment? You tell me.
>>3883852Er yeah what that guy said. Having nukes is constituional.Heh heh cool.
>>3883874I want to know where you, and your kind, come up with this hilariousness. They don't have to imagine nukes, because they literally said that citizens can have anything the government has. You cannot overthrow a gun based government with sticks, but you can with a gun. Etc. That was the logic from day one, it never changed, ever. So there is no only musket logic. None. Literally never. Not even kind of.
>>3883874Because their original intent had nothing to do with what was available at the time. They knew technology would advance. They had just fought a war with the most advanced weapons of their time. Their clear intent is written right there where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Not "muskets," "ARMS." The 2nd Amendment applies to all arms. It's the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that specifically states that it "shall not be infringed." And yes, that does mean all our current gun control laws are unconstitutional.If you want to say that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets, then that also means that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to the Internet, television, radio, telephones, telegraphs, etc.
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Seems reasonable for times when there were no large standing armies for either external or internal security. It meant that you could raise a skilled militia with less money.
>>3883916>>3883892Exactly. So by that logic, all the other originalist interpretations of the constitution are equally bunk. Only reason originalists suddenly come to their senses is that their positions would counter something they like, which is guns.
I don't particularly like Obamacare because it doesn't do enough to kick the middlemen out of health care. I expect a party-line vote that will overturn the provisions that the health insurance lobby hates the most. Then Obama throws his hands up and goes "OH WELL". Instead of fighting for reform like he should have.
>>3883945Which?
So the founding fathers were OK with slaves and women having virtually no rights. OK with only landowning males having voting powers. But they wanted everyone to have guns because of liberty and freedom and to thwart gubmint oppression?
>>3883951>can't even come up with an example to argue his point, wants me to do it for himgoing to bed instead
>>3883993No, your premise needs work.
>>3883842I don't see the regulation of markets enshrined in the commerce clause as allowing for the regulation of non-entering market participants. The decision to participate or not participate in a market will always have an effect on it or other markets but I don't see the regulation of market trade as the justification for regulating external effects on it.When you're uninsured and go to the hospital you never enter the health insurance market despite having an effect on it by draining materials from the hospital making them charge more and causing the health insurance premiums to go up. If the city built a new for everyone sports stadium and they wanted to keep the prices artificially low but demand wasn't high enough to fill the seats because people were watching the game at home on their TV and they couldn't cover the maintenance costs could the city mandate that everyone attend? By not attending you have an effect on the market and you participate in sports watching market which effects the sports attendance market, so does that fall under commerce clause? I have trouble seeing how market regulation = purchasing mandates.
>>3884004> their positionsWhich?
>>3882903>I don't give a fuck.>I already have a health insurance.>Feels good to be rich manDoes it also feel good to be a misanthropic fuck?
>>3883993only some founders were ok with slaves.they wanted white men to all have muskets, though.
>entire law gets repealed>Obama goes on camera, throws up his hands, and goes "fuck this shit" and exits stage right>we are suddenly left with Biden>God help us
>>3883365>self-determinance of purchase as protected by the ninth amendment >citing the ninth amendment >oh shit nigger are you seriousThe moment you bring the ninth amendment into a legal discussion, that discussion goes out the window. If the ninth amendment guarantees you the right to "self-determinance of purchase", then it also gives me the right to receipt of affordable healthcare.Honestly, the ninth amendment is the hugest clusterfuck of contradiction I've ever seen in a law, much less a constitutional article of amendment.
if they reverse it im going to be the most obnoxious fag to every liberal i see.if they uphold the mandate, im going to play video games all day and ignore it
>>3884009- The government can raise taxes to pay for it- The government can regulate the sale of viewing rights to help pay for it (even ban the sale of viewing rights so people can't watch it at home)- The government can raise the price of the tickets to help pay for it- The government can sell bonds to pay for it for itBut I don't see forced participation as being a clear conclusion of the regulating power of the sports stadium market. Why should people who don't attend the stadium and aren't watching the game on TV be forced to attend the games or face penalties? If they're not market participants how do they fall under the purview of governments power to regulate markets?
>>3884009Why don't you see the commerce clause affecting non-entering market participants? The commerce clause is worded extremely generally to establish a broad sphere of influence for the federal government. It is further amplified by the necessary and proper clause, and has been interpreted for most of the last century to include the channels of trade, the means of trade, and anythign having a substantial effect on trade.Is there some reason that you believe that there is a limitation on Congress's power to enact a mandatory participation rule? Remember, just because you disagree with the policy or think it is unwise doesn't mean that it is a power that Congress lacks. Congress has always had the power to do things that aren't wise, and it isn't the court's role to decide the wisdom of a plan. If Congress chooses unwisely, they are ultimately accountable to the people in their next reelection cycles.
>>3884113If they're not market participants how do they fall under the purview of governments power to regulate markets?See Wickard v. Filburn & Gonzalez v. Raich. Being a market participant or having the intent of being a market participant is not a requirement.
>>3883841> Chemical and biological weapons are forbidden by international law, which the United States has agreed uponDoes not trump the constitution. If the 2nd amendment guaranteed a right to own nuclear weapons, it would be unconstitutional for the US to agree to restrict them by treaty. Logic fail.>It's an asinine question that's basically the same as asking if the 2nd Amendment allows me to have my own Death Star.I can make quite powerful chemical weapons at home. Uranium processing takes place in commercial ventures, so it is far from a red herring to suggest that private entities can make and sell nuclear weapons. And stockpiling dangerous infectious materials is remarkably easy. The question is not hypothetical.You failed to even answer the question: Does the 2nd amendment guarantee a right to bear whatever arms one wishes? Or is there a limit? Its a yes-no question, and failing to answer yes or no is tantamount to pleading guilty to either sophistry or faggotry.
>>3883852> there are numerous text explaining why they did what they didLegislative intent is irrelevant to an originialist. Besides, I do not know if any text by the authors of the US constitution claiming an unlimited individual right to bear arms as part of the thinking behind the second amendment. The only authorial position I am aware of is that the British should not have been able to deprive the colonists of their militias.
>young healthy people bitching because they refuse to accept they are part of a country and not surviving solo
>>3882836Sell the car and get a bike. Fucking retard, I just saved you $6000 a year.Also, minimum wage isn't a living wage, get a better job or work 2 jobs.
>>3884123>Remember, just because you disagree with the policy or think it is unwise doesn't mean that it is a power that Congress lacks. Congress has always had the power to do things that aren't wise, and it isn't the court's role to decide the wisdom of a plan.That's definitely part of it but I'm also not convinced of the logical sequence of regulation of a market to regulating those who don't participate in a market. For me it doesn't sit well logically that complete authority over X means the ability to force non-X elements into X. >>3884169>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._FilburnWell it looks like they have their legal precedent and a strong one on that because he grew his own wheat he wouldn't buy more chicken feed. So he was avoiding the chicken feed market but while it sets precedent for regulating those not participating in the market it wasn't a mandate requiring he buy chicken feed.>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._RaichAnother justification for those not participating in the market but again he wasn't forced to purchase something which is about to be the precedent set or destroyed.While I disagree with the governments authority over non-market participants both morally and as my interpretation of the commerce clause, they have the legal precedent for concluding that because they can regulate non-market participants that they can go from there and mandate participation. I find it too broad an interpretation but it has legal precedent.
Breaking down the votes, you'll definitely see:Repeal: Thomas, Alito, and Scalia (who has lost his damn mind.)Uphold: Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, BreyerLeaving Kennedy and Roberts to decide this. Roberts has signaled that he is less hostile as of late to stare decisis. The rest of the conservative bloc couldn't give a fuck about deference. However, he's likely to join his conservative brothers as he always does.Means it's all up to Kennedy who goes from logical to batshit crazy depending on the week.
>>3884329There is no clearer reason for constitutional reform in America than the fact that Anthony Kennedy's personal opinion alone trumps the President and the Congress.
>>3884340That and the overt politicization of the highest court in the land. While the liberal justices are not immune to political ideaology defining outcomes, Scalia has become this monster in and of himself.The man has pretty much broken every single convention of the court since Bush came to office. He's gone on private trips with administration officials, entered politically-minded arguments in his rulings, and signaled his view on upcoming cases time and time again. Not even Thomas has done this and he's pretty staunchly conservative.
>>3884237The 2nd Amendment says what it says. I believe it does guarantee the right to own any weapon.But let's assume for a moment here that a private citizen was able to get his hands on a nuke. At that point, he could essentially hold the entire nation hostage (assuming he could detonate it), so any law forbidding nuclear weapons would be meaningless anyway. Criminals don't obey laws, so the whole thing about the 2nd Amendment applying to nukes is still pointless. The 2nd Amendment does apply to nukes, but it's such an outrageous situation that it's not worth debating.
>>3882905>first of all, why would you buy a car if you earn minimum wage.Because is much safer than riding a bicycle and it might be needed in some cases.>third, if you are driven to take handouts, you are a democratic voter because you won't vote for republicans because they want to take away all your shitHandouts for taxpayers are just a way to get back their stolen earnings. Also,LGTSS>voting
Does anyone know what time they're going to announce it? I'm at work and I don't want to kill my battery by checking all day.
>>3884297*at that *other mistakesIf it gets shot down today I'll see it as a semi-successful step towards narrowing the powers of the commerce but I do see it's historical interpretation has been quite broad. And as a piece of text it has very broad powers, even more so if you allow regulation of commerce to include those not participating in that commerce.Historically speaking it's illogical to shoot down the mandate since non-market participants are covered by its powers but as a means of disavowing that interpretation, which the justices won't do and aren't going to do, it makes sense.Essentially the justices are going to vote it down because they want to arbitrarily draw the line at purchasing mandates or they simply don't like the policy in question, I doubt this will ever go forward to removing the legal precedent for the purchasing mandate.Thanks for the discussion and info, it's been enlightening.
>>3884297>I find it too broad an interpretation but it has legal precedent.This is what it comes down to at the end of the day. Legal scholars pretty much agree that this law is constitutional. They also don't expect it to be upheld because conservatives on the court aren't as principled as they'd like you to believe (troll-in-chief Scalia especially). The fact of the matter is that this bill was controversial, but it only passed because democrats won an election and won it BIG. Elections have consequences and in a democracy that means you have to deal with laws that you probably don't like being enacted.
>>3884385They'll disseminate the information by horsemail. That was they founder's intent.
>>3884368The first amendment says what it says, but it is completely non-controversial that not all speech is protected. Why would the second amendment be different? The constitution is not a suicide pact; clear dangers can be regulated within reason
>>388438510am Washington time. 4pm CET, 3pm BST, 7am California time. If you live elsewhere, do your own fucking math.
>>3884329> Repeal: Thomas, Alito, and Scalia (who has lost his damn mind.)My guess is that Thomas will write a separate dissent no matter what which indicates that he thinks Wickard should be overturned, unless of course the basis for striking down the law is overturning Wickard.
>>3884393I chortled.
>>3884424> but it is completely non-controversial that not all speech is protectedNo it isn't.Not at all.There's plenty of controversy.
>>3884441There's only "controversy" in the sense that there's "controversy" over climate change and evolution.
>>3884441Rather, what's "reasonable" as far as restrictions on speech are well thought out, fairly clear and well established, while restrictions on weapons work more like the applause meter on Oprah.
>>3884429> unless of course the basis for striking down the law is overturning WickardIn which case he'll pull a /tv/ and post a picture to scotusblog with him cumming all over the decision
>>3884451Okay cool guy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zoneshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28term%29
>>3884424>not all speech is protectedUm, I'm pretty sure it is. That's why it's called "freedom of speech" after all. The only "speech" I would guess isn't protected is the example of yelling "fire" in a theater, libe, slander, threats, etc. However, you could also say that while the 2nd Amendment guarantees you the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't give you the right to use them to hurt someone. And no, I'm not talking about "hate speech" either. The concept of "freedom of speech" is based entirely on protecting unpopular opinions.And yes, freedom does come with a price.
>>3884429>>3884466I'd ejaculate with the force of a thousand sons if wickard was overturned.
>People who know nothing about the constitution or Supreme Court saying why it is or is not constitutionalIf the court rules like they have in the past, it should be upheld, if they rule based on ideology like in Bush v. Gore, it wont be
>>3884473The controversy over free speech zones is not about raising the question of whether or not all speech is protected. The chilling effect is about civil lawsuits. The government is not a litigant in these cases, so no constitutional infringement can happen.
>>3884478Eternal vigilance?
>>3884462What's reasonable is only more well established for first amendment cases because the court bothered to take the time to sketch out some of the limits. The court had the sophistication to include some rough limits in the Heller case, but preferred to overturn the handgun ban without any substantial analysis on what constitutes reasonable restrictions because of ideological concerns. It was an amusing case since the normal sides were flipped with liberals arguing for states/localities to have unchecked rights to limit guns and republicans arguing that big government needed to step in to tell the states they didn't have the power to do something
>How will they rule today?>the Supreme Court has six Catholic and three Jewish justices whenI count nine of them, 6 are Catholics. They will rule with canon law obviously. Nothing drives people through the church doors like illness, war and poverty.Welcome to the 21st century Roman Inquisition in Amurka. lol
>>3884500If by "eternal vigilance" you mean putting american flag bumper stickers on your pickup truck and buying guns, no. If by "eternal vigilance" you mean supporting civil liberty groups like the ACLU and NRA, and paying your taxes, then "yes."
>>3884511>He doesn't know the "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." quote.>you have to give munnies to receive libertydo ho ho
>>3884491Okay i was off the mark.
>>3884478> Um, I'm pretty sure it is. That's why it's called "freedom of speech" after all. The only "speech" I would guess isn't protected is the example of yelling "fire" in a theater, libe, slander, threats, etc. Nope.Fraud is not protected. Libel is not protected. Labeling laws are quite restrictive. You can't claim a food is "reduced fat" and expect 1st amendment protection because that's just your opinion and you have right to say it. Your employer can prevent you, by contract, from saying all kinds of things and the courts will uphold it. In Texas, you can't even disparage the eating of beef as unhealthy and bad for the environment without running afoul of the law. You cannot claim 1st amendment protection for disseminating state secrets, or breaking copyright, or misusing a trademark. If you use a radio to broadcast speech, you can be subject to all sorts of limitations on the words you use, the subject matters you discuss, the opinions you can communicate. You do you not have the freedom to use prime time commercial broadcasting to make paid commercial statements taking more than 8 minutes out of any hour.The 1st amendment protects a lot less than everything. It's far, far, far, FAR from an absolute right.
>>3884478If that's what you think, you are hopelessly uneducated. Do a quick read through of the wiki page on the subject before you embarrass yourself furtherhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
6-3, uphold Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will vs Kennedy, Kagan, Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg.Kennedy will vote in favor of it breaking the tie and then Roberts will vote along with him so he can be on the winning side.
If they strike it down, I will have to let the flood insurance bill pass to save us from drowning in liberal tears.
>>3884527You know what pays the salaries of judges that uphold the bill of rights? Tax dollars.
>>3884597I am disappointed, Anon. You should know by now that a private SCOTUS would be much better than this filthy public-funded court.
>>3884597tax dollars don't pay anyone's salary, the federal reserve pays government salaries and everything else, taxation destroys money i does not raise it
>>3884555SC has also upheld laws that prohibit or punish speech likely to result in imminent lawless action, effectively granting a heckler's veto. They've upheld prior restraint of newspapers, albeit in very limited situations. Then there are time, place and manner restrictions where you can speak, but only in certain ways at certain timesI'm not complaining about this stuff. Most of these rules are good, common sense rules that keep society humming along nicely. People just need to face reality that restrictions on first amendment rights are common. We won't even go into the 4th amendment or our heads might explode...
The court will uphold it: long term ideological goals will trump short term partisan squabbles. The law gives the government the right, in essence, to force people to buy corporate products. This far-right Supreme Court won't let such a goodie just slide through their hands.
>>3884578>hold up flood insurance bill to try to force congress to accept your radical view of the conception of lifeThat guy is such a fucking asshole.
>>3884627the flood insurance program is one of the biggest pro-rich money sinks the government has running, it should not exist
>>3884555Yeah, that's kind of what I meant. The 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to speech that could do direct harm to someone. I guess that's a good way to explain it.The 1st Amendment also doesn't say that it "shall not be infringed" like the 2nd Amendment does.>>3884558Wow, so edgy. I guess you sure showed me.
I think it's going to be a 5-4 decision mandate strike down.Do I want universal health care? Yes. Do I think Obamacare is a UHC plan? Nope.
>>3884478>>3884478it seems like you might not know that in Supreme court justice Bolivar Wendell Homes ruling, the phrase "fire in a crowded theatre" refereed to criticizing the government during a war.
>>3884642I wish I had showed you, but you clearly didn't take the time to read the helpful summary of some of the more prominent 1st amendment exceptions
>>3884622That's the point. Acknowledging the right to speak freely does not mean sensible regulations cannot limit it. As far as I can tell, the 1st amendment has a very purposive interpretation in the US and always has: You have a legitimate right to hold opinions, to disagree with the government and with other people, and you have the right to access to fora where you can communicate that. You don't just have a right to say any fucking thing that comes into your head.The idea that the 2nd amendment, even if interpreted as an individual right, is any different is just NRA faggotry. A right to bear arms is not a right to own any weapon at all, independently of sensible public policy. There is no right to concealed weapons, no right to carry weapons wherever you like, no right to assault weapons, no special right to handguns. Any sensible interpretation that includes the second clause of the amendment would say people have a right to know how to use weapons, to participate in the defense of their communities and a right not to be arbitrarily deprived of their arms. This follows from the English Bill of Rights, from the common law, and from the history of 2nd amendment jurisprudence up to the last decade.That is far from a universal right to own guns and swagger around carrying them.
>>3884648Do you seriously think Republicans will ever let UHC happen? They lurched and screamed at the Heritage Plan + Romney.
>>3884720No, I believe you when you (and wikipedia) say that there are exceptions to "freedom of speech." I actually didn't think into that well enough. When we say "freedom of speech," we actually mean "freedom to express your opinions," not "freedom to say whatever you want with no regard to the effects on other people."
>>3884635I'm gonna need some kind of evidence of that. The NFIP is hardly what I would consider to the benefit of the wealthy.
>>3884627I am amused. Tell me more.
>>3884728yes there is. militia members are expected to keep weapons. it follows that they should be allowed to buy the best weapons availabe, i.e. handguns and assault weapons.
>>3884728Dude what? You haven't been paying attention at all. How many times have I said that the 2nd Amendment states that the "right of thr people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." That's what it says in plain English. You can't possibly argue with that.And LOL WTF is an "assault weapon?" I guarantee you have no idea what that means just as you clearly have no idea what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is. There's no point in arguing with you if you're going to go back to the whole "2A only guarantees muskets" thing some other people and myself debunked earlier.
>2nd amendmentIf only there was a reference book for interpreting the constitution when reading it in plain English doesn't give us the result we want...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%27s_Law_Dictionary>Black's Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black. It is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases.OH BOY!(image has references)
>>3884798> militia members are expected to keep weapons. it follows that they should be allowed to buy the best weapons availabe,Switzerland has militia. Members are issued assault rifles and ammo purchased and owned by the government. They are required to keep them in their home. They must annually show that the weapon is serviceable and that they can account for every bullet. They are categorically forbidden from taking the weapon out except for militia exercises or in the defense of the nation as part of an organized military action.That is pretty much the opposite of what you're proposing.
>>3884814So, implicitly all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights can be infringed? It's just this one that the Founding Fathers wanted to protect from the application of basic logic?Do you realize what faggotry that is?
>implying liberals give a shit about a health care plan written by the heritage foundation. I'm a moderate, and there is honestly there is a lot of good stuff in the bill (kids can stay on parents insurance until 27, 85% of premiums have to go towards care, ect.) the worst decision for the Republicans would be a full repeal, because it would undo a lot of the fixes to the current system that were put in it, there would be a pretty huge backlash. A partial repeal striking down the individual mandate would just give the democrats ammo to implement a single payer plan. Personally i believe their decision will be 6-3 uphold. But that is just my opinion.
>>3884822>implying legal dictionaries or treatises have precedential value
>>3884868>A partial repeal striking down the individual mandate would just give the democrats ammo to implement a single payer plan. I wish that were true. Single payer is a lot better, it's just impossible as long as America is the place it is.
>>3884870>didn't read the citations>all caselawI made an unassailable point, the intention of the 2nd amendment was to allow citizens to keep and bear military weapons- any subsequent divide by zero reinterpretation not withstanding.
>>3884855No, the Founders put that into the text of the 2nd Amendment specifically to silence fags like you who would try to put restrictions on what citizens can own. Something that is legal for the government to do, but illegal for the citizenry is tyranny plain and simple.Think of it this way: The 1st Amendment gives us the right to all words. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to all arms. However, they don't allow us to use those words or arms in ways that would injure or otherwise infringe upon the rights of others.
>>3884880I think insurance itself should just be eliminated from health care. Insurance markets are designed, and work best, when both parties lack information and when the insured doesn't anticipate making claims (i.e. claims are "accidental"). Health (dental, etc) is not such a market. Which is part of the reason why health "insurance" is so expensive.
>>3884728>Any sensible interpretation that includes the second clause of the amendment would say...a right not to be arbitrarily deprived of their arms>A right to bear arms is not a right to own any weapon at allWhat non arbitrary means do you have of determining what weapons shouldn't be owned?> no right to assault weapons, no special right to handgunsWhat's an assault weapon and why should handguns which have a common military use be entirely excluded? Why should assault weapons (select fire weapons, my definition) which are used by militaries world wide be excluded?>There is no right to concealed weapons, no right to carry weapons wherever you likeThe NRA agitates for those rights on a local level. I don't remember them asking for a federal lawsuit providing for CC and OC their disputes are mostly over the issuing of weapons and weapon licenses.
>>3884880Right-wing teabaggers do not accurately represent American values, they just have the media megaphone which makes it seem that way. There is plenty of support for single payer among liberals and moderates, obviously not all moderates approve of it, but to keep the status quo is the greater evil.
>>3884902So you would have no problem with Durka durka Mohammad Jihad muslim-american citizen owning a nuclear bomb? Because it's not that difficult to build a bomb once you have the material.
>>3882907>clearly unconstitutional>>3883236>What specific provision does it breach?The 10th amendment.>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Obamacare grants the Federal government a NEW power - The power to force an individual to engage in commerce. With a fine (or imprisonment) if they can't or wont buy health insurance.Also Romneycare was a STATE law. So it's okay (but comparatively expensive) according to the 10th amendment.Which
lol Americans pay almost twice as much as Canadians on health care and many would pay more if they can make others go withoutgood luck
>>3884959> the 10th amendmentI am pretty sure you can count on one hand the number of times the 10th amendment has actually justified any decision.
So how many of you are going to lose health insurance after the supreme court strikes it down?23 and unemployed here. I'm scared.
geez when are some of these fucks gonna start dying off? Clarence Thomas is an old fuck that just needs to go away, Scalia is a fatfuck who needs to croak, andGinsburg looks like shes gonna croak any dayonce the boomers are gone well be able to do whatever the fuck we want
>>3884959Is it illegal in America to drive without car insurance?
>>3884979The whole mandate isn't going to be struck down.
>>3884902> the Founders put that into the text of the 2nd Amendment specifically to...Who said so and where? Put up or shut up, faggot. The actual conditions of its passage have little to do with your interpretation. It is the capacity of the people to organize in their own defense that stands out as the purpose of the law in *every* instance.>>3884909>What non arbitrary means do you have of determining what weapons shouldn't be owned?The English Bill of Rights has a right to bear arms because James II tried to take arms just away from Protestants. An arbitrary deprivation would be saying that black people can't have guns (there used to be laws like that) or gay people, or immigrants (laws still say that). A non-arbitrary restriction is a law that limits access to arms for reasons rationally connected to public safety.
>>3885003No it isn't unless you're on public roads.
>>3884983lol what a foolthinks greedy corporations will go away when baby boomers die what a total moron
>>3884959Here is the thing, you're wrong.
>>3885017Then why shouldn't it be illegal to live in society and not have health insurance, giving the taxpayer the bill if you can't pay?
>>3885003I'm not aware of a federal mandate.
>>3885017probably a lot of people buy cars to drive in their drivewaythat'll show those insurance companies
>>3885010>A non-arbitrary restriction is a law that limits access to arms for reasons rationally connected to public safety.So you'd agree that the assault weapons ban was unconstitutional due to their low use in crime and the lack of any measurable impact on crime during their outlaw? And you'd agree with handgun bans being unconstitutional when no evidence has come forward of them actually increasing public safety?
>>3885051not everyone buys a caralso, car insurance covers accidents. It doesn't cover oil changes, gas, or maintenance (labor or parts).Car insurance is entirely dissimilar to heath insurance.It's time for you to stop.
>>3885051What's a farm?What are private roads?What is private property?Should junk yards buy insurance on all their vehicles?If I put my car in storage should I have insurance on it?
>>3885078 If you drive your car on public roads then it needs to be insured, pretty simple
>>3885098not in new hampshirei've never had auto insurance in 7 years of driving
>>3885062"Rationally connected" is not necessarily about that. Handguns are used in crimes quite a lot. A nation-wide ban - as opposed to local bans that are easy to bypass by driving somewhere else to buy guns - is rationally connected to public safety. It might and might not work, but that is not the point of constitutionality. The constitution does not forbid ineffective or bad laws, it does usually forbid arbitrary laws and irrational justifications.I should think that the state could well have a rational basis to ban whole classes of weapons. Consider, there's no evidence that laws regulating access to explosives reduces violent crime. And yet, I don't think you could say regulating dynamite is irrational. I think it's also silly to say it's unconstitutional just because explosives are also arms.
>>3885003>Is it illegal in America to drive without car insurance?Mostly Yes. (but not always see below)1) However, that is irrelevant. You are not FORCED to buy car insuranse - especially if you don't own a car. (like many people living in New York City)2) Secondly - Driving without insurance laws are STATE laws. New Hampshire (for example) doesn't require insurance3) Only if you use public roads. If you build your own road, on your own property, you can drive on it all day without insurance.
>>3885098I was addressing the point about the only advantage to not needing insurance on a vehicle unless you're on public roads is useless.
>>3885103That seems dumb, what happens if you hit some other car? just pay for it out of pocket?
>>3884835swizerland is not america.
What's the bump limit?
>>3885138This or get sued.
>>3885190300, so after this post 69 more
>>3885138I'm not sure what the law is in NH, but their website suggests that you cannot drive ever if you owe money from an accident.
>>3885199Thank you.
>>38851231) Yeah but if you want to drive you are forced to buy it, and everybody is alive and will have health concerns at some point. 2) you would agree though that not having car insurance is generally a bad idea anyway3) No one is stopping you from going into the wilderness and getting sick. Driving on a public road = Living in a public society
Is coercing somebody to enter into a private contract, a power of the state?No.Is coercing somebody to buy, sell, hire or be hired, a power of the state?No.Is siphoning from somebody's income as a condition of their behavior or inaction, a power of the state?No.Is regulating the conduct of people, a power of the state?Yes.Active misconduct is subject to penalty.- Fines can be the answer to civil infractions, and are subject to overturning by a magistrate.- Indictment by a grand jury or arrest via warrant, and a speedy trial is required for all other, greater violations.
It's strange how whether or not it's constitutional is more important then whether or not it's a good idea. Should a more then 200 year old document really be looked at as a model of how to solve problems today? I'm not an American so maybe I'm missing something.
>>3885045> Here is the thing, you're wrong.Fantastic rebuttle - are you sure you're not Donald B. Verrilli Jr.?
the people that like to call the US a christian country are the same people that want others to go without lol
>>3885308Complete goverment control is not a good idea.
Been saying this all along, it'll be 6-3. Roberts will NOT be on the losing side in this. He'll write the majority opinion with Kennedy and the dems signing on, perhaps some concurring opinions which attempt to broaden the scope of how Roberts will craft this.Some freak chance he can pull Scalia over based on some of the appeals court decisions which have been written and are on target using significant precedent. I doubt it at this point as Scalia seems willing to throw consistency out the door for partisanship. He used to be a dick, but consistently well written dick. I feel like he's moving into hack territory.Upholding the law is good for the court, good for democrats, but bad for me, as it just further entrenches big pharma and big healthcare making public option or true universal care that much further off. I object to the premise of the healthcare, but fuck it, nothing we can do now.
very few are going with out in the US and many of those who do do it by choice.
>>3885254>Is coercing somebody to enter into a private contract, a power of the state?Insurance is mandatory for a great many activities, not just driving. Yes, the state can coerce you into entering into a private contract with a third party that meets specified legal requirements.>Is coercing somebody to buy, sell, hire or be hired, a power of the state?Yes. When you don't pay your property taxes, the state forces you to sell your land to pay them under threat that the state will seize and sell it themselves. This is also true in bankruptcy procedings: You can be forced, by state action to sell things. You can also be forced to buy things. If you own a business, you can be compelled by law to buy and install fire detectors, handicapped access ramps, or a million other things. You can also be forced to hire people, although usually not people named by the state it can be people who have state-determined qualifications. You cannot run an airline if you do not hire government-certified pilots. And, if you get welfare, you can be compelled in many states to take the job the government tells you to take.>Is siphoning from somebody's income as a condition of their behavior or inaction, a power of the state?Do I even have to respond to that? What do you think a civil fine is if not "siphoning from somebody's income as a condition of their behavior or inaction"?
corporations twist government regulations into knots so it will do their bidding and then say you can't trust government
>>3885229If you drive uninsured on public ways or commercial lots, the least you'd be subject to is being stopped and told not to continue driving the vehicle. The same actionablity cannot be applied to somebody's health, because the concepts are not analogous. You'd have to commit offenders to detention in air-tight, padded rooms; providing them with everything they'd need to remain healthy, lest they have a genetic disease which would sicken them anyway.
>>3885356Activities you can opt out of preforming
anyone streaming live coverage?
I'm 22 and i'm going to lose my mother's health insurance coverage if this gets struck down. :(
>>3885387You can opt out of paying for heath insurance under Obamacare. Just don't have any income.
>forcing everyone to buy health insurance and pharmacueticals from large corporations that liberals claim to hate. Liberal logicHow about we just make any health insurance available in all 50 states. The increased competition would drive premiums down.
>>3885386or, make them buy health insurance!
>>38852291) From a constitutionally perspective, this is ok. Insurance is mandated by the states and we gave them that power. 2) Irrelevant. 3) I fucking hate it when liberals use, "don't like it? Leave, or live in the woods." Why don't you go live in yuropian paradise where individual rights are steamrolled? I swear, liberals have zero appreciation for why the American rev was fought and what our forefathers gave us.
>>3885398many insurers are keeping some of the policiesi mean, keeping on young people until age 26 probably doesn't hurt the bottom line that much.
>>3885319I said they "want others to go without"
>>3885412Isn't the problem in the first place big insurance companies that conspire to keep prices high...
>>3885117>"Rationally connected" is not necessarily about that. It might and might not work, but that is not the point of constitutionality.So it doesn't require the logic be reasonably sound and effective? It only requires marginal justifications in safety.There already exists a large cache of handguns banning the sale of them wouldn't get rid of them and the increase in the sale of handguns has never been connected with an increase of crime.You can't get rid of them so that portion of the safety issue isn't addressed because people will still trade their pre-ban handguns among the criminal element and there isn't a clear connection with increased availability and crime.This doesn't even include the prevalent use of handguns in self-defense situations.> it does usually forbid arbitrary laws and irrational justifications.Seeing as the justification is public safety and there's no logical connection between handgun bans and increased safety would you not agree under your 'Rationally connected to public safety' that the law would be found unconstitutional?>I should think that the state could well have a rational basis to ban whole classes of weapons.They may well do but I wouldn't count handguns and assault weapons among them.
Stolen Valor law STRUCK DOWN! I'm a 30 year vet, who served in Afghanistan and Vietnam bitches!
>>3885412I don't know any "liberals" who actually like this law.Republicans don't want the law to be struct down, because they don't want another year of health policy debate. It's a losing argument and they have no answers to the stats and the questions that show how much we spend and how little we get out of it. They haev no replacement, and an Obama offer of medicare for all would DESTROY Romney. Romney will lose overwhelmingly if it is struct down today. If it is upheald, at least he can run on repeal.Book it, republicans want it to stand. Dems want it to stand. Corporatists want it to stand. Big pharma wants it to stand. Big healthcare wants it to stand. It will stand.
>>3885356All of those examples are inanalogous to the minimal essential coverage provision. They're not capitation-based regulations.
Alvarez case: first amendment upheldhttp://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/
>>3885408
They're reading the first decision right now (unrelated to Obamacare). It'll be a few minutes.
Any liberals watching fox and conservatives watching msnbc?
>>3885412con religion the market will fix everything
>>3885434You can hate it all you want, but living in a society comes with responsibility beyond yourself. If you want to live among everyone one else, then maybe it's a god idea to buy health insurance so you don't end up dumping the cost of any emergency treatment on the rest of us.
They're starting on the heath are decision.
>>3885427But they can't.
UPHELD
>Amy Howe: The individual mandate survives as a tax.
>>3885527They're saying it's a tax and letting it pass.
Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare.
It was upheld it's being called a functional tax.
man this is gonna be great watching the republifags cry...
>>3885535>Amy Howe:It's very complicated, so we're still figuring it out. Stop fucking up Amy.
If the individual mandate passed, theyre gonna have a hard time striking any more of it down. That was the sticky bit.
ahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahazhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>>3885531>>3885551wrong
Roberts voted with the liberals!
>>3885583Fuck! I bet it would be 5-4! I owe a lot of beers.
HAHA TIME FOR TEA PARTY BUTTHURT
Amy Howe: The Medicaid provision is limited but not invalidated.
HAHA. What I've been saying all along. Roberts writing the decision for the majority 6-3. Writing has been on the wall for so long that this would be the case.And what's worse is that the justices had to make the argument for them, since the commerce clause could not be used.
"Give Romney a chance to show what he can do?"You don't need to elect him to do that. Just go lookatBush's presidency!And Obamacare is not "illegal." Maybe it will be declared "unconstitutional," but by who? A bunch of ideologues with hidden agendas masquerading as Justices? The overwhelming majority of legal minds in the US think Health Reform should stand.
>>3885583fucking called it weeks ago along with some othersfuck yeahgod damn I am so mad I didn't get in on intrade because fucking US banks fuck fuck
>>3885611Feds can't terminate State's medicaid money.
The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.
>The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.
>>3885623what the fuck are you rambling about?
mandate upheld
So, now that the primary attack from the right is in the rear view, can actual liberals now start fighting this to institute some kind of real universal coverage?
>>3885653Tom: Chief Justice Roberts' vote saved the ACA.
>>3885688>Implying this in anyway opens the door for alternativesIt constitutes the new system bub.
the insurance companies won
>>3885626No shit, this was clear as day.Roberts is going to be there for 30 more years. It was obvious how he was going to rule, and it was obvious that he'd be writing the majority opinion so that he could craft it as narrowly as possible. Roberts has a sense of his purpose after the last couple years.
>>3885701WTF? Kennedy voted against and Robert for?It's still 5-4? Jesus Fucking Christ!
>Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.
>>3885712THIS. The insurance and pharmaceutical companies are so in bed with Obongo. END CORRUPTION! MOAR GUBMENT!
>>3885709That's my point. Health care reform that is actually beneficial to me has been closed. We have another 20-30 years of shit care and corporatism to deal with before we can have additional reform.
>>3885752oh wow did not expect that
>>3885752dat bizarro world.
>Millions with pre-existing conditions can still get health insurance>People under 26 still get insurance>Companies have to spend 80-85% of premiums on actual health careFUCK YEAH. SUCK IT CONSERVATIVES.
>>3885754>commerce clause not usedSmart.
> Amy Howe: > The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate. what is going on
4 more years of Obama: locked insucks to be you republifags
>>3885688I give it 18 months. Once the measures are fully in place, no Republican in their right mind will campaign to take away your kids medical insurance. I give the insurance companies 18 month to bitch and kveth about how they can't make any money this way and need direct spending from the Federal budget. You'll ether end up with a German style system (which sucks, so it's very much the American way) or a quasi-single-payer scheme where the insurance companies are just middle men.
>Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding
>>3885814> I give the insurance companies 18 month to bitch >bitch about new low risk customersNot gonna happen.
>>3885776>Millions now mandated to buy policies from price gouging insurance companies You forgot one
Amy Howe: The Court does not reach severability issues, having upheld the mandate 5-4.
>>3885794Not sure yet. It might mean as little as "refusing to pay for insurance is no different from refusing to pay your taxes."
>>3885837>>bitch about new low risk customers>Not gonna happen.No. They're gonna bitch about all the old people and fat people and handicapped people they now have to cover.
Amy Howe: Another way to think about Medicaid: the Constitution requires that states have a choice about whether to participate in the expansion of eligibility; if they decide not to, they can continue to receive funds for the rest of the program.
>>3885847sucks to be you brah, just man up and pay the insurance your precious moneytoo bad youre not like me who has govt insurance & doesnt pay a fucking dime or taxes
>>3885878They get more new customers than they get problems I expect bitching only from the smaller companies.
>>3885794"The only effect of not complying with the mandate is paying the tax."If you refuse to buy insurance, the gov't makes you pay an extra tax to cover you directly.
Tom: Apologies - you can't refuse to pay the tax; typo. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax.
>The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.
Amy Howe: The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power. Amy Howe: The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power. Amy Howe: The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power. Amy Howe: The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power. HAHAHA FUCK YES SHALLOW TECHNICAL VICTORIES ARE THE BEST KIND.
4 justices say its legit under the commerce clause. Roberts says no, it's not. But it is legit as a de facto tax.
>>3885900I'm not really worried about me. I work for the city government and have excellent health insurance. I'm worried about dishonest insurance companies getting even more money for doing absolutely nothing.
>UPHELDAlas, this means Amendment XVI trumps Amendments IV and V, more so than usual.
