Supreme Court Will Overturn ObamaCare! Butnahhhhhhhhh - Page 2 - Politics and Economics

seattlelou · 06-13-2012, 02:12 PM

Intrade is always right in the end.

rockfsh · 06-13-2012, 02:14 PM

My guess is that the Court defers ruling under the Tax Anti-Injunction Act by calling this a tax.

caseycjc · 06-13-2012, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Ever since Associate Justice Alito scowled and waved his hand in disgust after President Obama publicly called them out for the Citizens United decision during his State of the Union address, you can bet that the conservative majority of the court has been steaming. Now it's payback time

This is in the top five of his dumbest moves to date. I suspect Obama Care is history, not just the mandate but the entire kit and kaboodle.

Jake7777 · 06-13-2012, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caseycjc

This is in the top five of his dumbest moves to date. I suspect Obama Care is history, not just the mandate but the entire kit and kaboodle.

As much as I dislike Alito and co., it's pretty insulting to suggest that they are going to form legal decisions based on personal grudges

suzzer99 · 06-13-2012, 03:04 PM

All humans are irrational actors first, and rational second.

caseycjc · 06-13-2012, 03:24 PM

Yea, actually I should have been more specific.
A) Top five dumb moves
B) It's unconstitutional

Although Obama humiliating the SCOTUS was a foolish move I think that Obama Care will be struck down due to B.

Turn Prophet · 06-13-2012, 03:38 PM

Probably overturned. This court is extremely right-wing. And I'm not sure Obama can translate it into a move to fire up the base, since he alienated so many of them by chucking the public option, and because, well, Democrats fail at politics.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if the PPACA exists in any form after the Roberts Court rules on it.

Alan C. Lawhon · 06-13-2012, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seattlelou

If I had to gamble in this issue (besides my avatar bet with goofball) I would go with the mandate being found unconstitutional based solely on the intrade contract trading at 70 percent. That indicator aside I would guess the mandate is withheld but the opinion is written in such a way to limit the scope of the decision to healthcare only.

I listened to some of the oral arguments back in March. Not being a lawyer, I'm not sufficiently versed in the intricacies of the Commerce Clause and "legislative intent," but the comments of some of the justices revealed a court that could go either way. Some of the more liberal justices expressed a view that the court should be extremely reluctant to reverse a major piece of legislation passed by the Congress. There were references to the controversial Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Acts passed by Congress in the 1960's. Conservative justices such as Antonin Scalia complained about all the horse trading that went on to get enough votes to pass ObamaCare - although I don't see how the Affordable Healthcare Act is any different from all the other "horse trading" that goes on every day in Congress.

To strike the individual mandate, here's how the votes would have to shake out. Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas would all vote to strike. That's four votes to strike. Associate Justices Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan (probably) vote to uphold the individual mandate. That's three votes to uphold. That leaves Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer to decide the issue. The four conservative justices need only one of those two justices to side with them. If either Breyer or Kennedy sides with the four conservative justices, then the individual mandate is struck by a 5-4 vote. If Steven Breyer and Anthony Kennedy both decide not to strike, then the individual mandate is upheld by a 5-4 vote. I suppose Intrade has it at 70 percent for striking on the theory that it is unlikely both Justice Breyer and Justice Kennedy will vote to uphold the mandate. One of them will surely vote with the four conservative justices.

I'm sticking with my original argument. It's cynical, I'll admit, but I think politics is going to play a role in this decision.

Turn Prophet · 06-13-2012, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan C. Lawhon

I'm sticking with my original argument. It's cynical, I'll admit, but I think politics is going to play a role in this decision.

lol, it's cynical to acknowledge that justices make rulings for political reasons? I guess acknowledging reality is pretty cynical. Come to think of it, I think that's the only meaning of the term these days...

Jake7777 · 06-13-2012, 03:49 PM

seattlelou · 06-13-2012, 04:29 PM

Thought I would repost this here before we go off on the Lolpolitics deep end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrModern

In the unlikely event that anyone here cares to discuss anything beyond their feelings about whether the Affordable Care Act is good public policy, I'd like to offer a legal argument that the individual mandate is unconstitutional without resort to slippery slope.

In Wickard v. Filburn, which remains good law, the Court defined the outer boundary of Congress' power to regulate purely intrastate economic activity under the Commerce Clause. Wickard requires that the government establish the existence of an economic activity that, in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. Without such a showing, there is no "jurisdictional hook" establishing congressional authority to regulate the behavior under the Commerce Clause.

No one denies that the decision not to purchase health insurance substantially affects interstate commerce; indeed, that decision can unfairly impose the costs of one's own emergency medical care on others who do carry insurance policies.

Nevertheless, the decision not to purchase insurance does not constitute an activity. In Wickard, as well as in Gonzales v. Raich, the individual made a choice to engage in some economic activity: growing wheat in Wickard and growing marijuana in Raich. Those who decline to do something are choosing to remain inactive, and our law frequently recognizes that the distinction between action and inaction makes a difference (it distinguishes, for example, the murderer from the bad Samaritan).

There may be adverse consequences to inactivity - and inactivity in the market for health insurance may be unfair to others - but the Court's precedents, not public policy considerations, should be our guide in defining the scope of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

**Dynasty** · 06-15-2012, 10:41 PM

I've been expecting the individual mandate to be struck down since before the bill was actually signed into law.

It was only after hearing some of the oral arguments that I've become persuaded that they'll throw out the entire ACA. I just don't see the Court going through the entire legislation and choosing what can stay and what can go. Nor do I think they'd strike down the mandate and create chaos by allowing everything else to stand.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made some comments on Friday about upcoming Court decisions

Quote:

“Those who know don’t talk. And those who talk don’t know,” she quipped Friday night at a conference hosted by the American Constitution Society at the Capital Hilton.

"It is likely that the sharp disagreement rate will go up next week and the week after,”

Also, I think the idea that the Court striking down the ACA would provide a political benefit to President Obama is ludicrous. The ACA is unpopular and a majority of Americans want some or all of the law to be struck down/repealed.

AlexM · 06-16-2012, 03:43 AM

Striking this down but allowing the War on Drugs is absurd. Either the Commerce Clause allows everything or it doesn't IMO.

Low Key · 06-16-2012, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Mandate overturned 5-4 with multiple opinions on why with different reasoning. Ruled seperable so rest of the law stands.

I would have said this 100% before listening to the proceedings.

Thinking about those and the recent "always side with whatever gives large corporations the most money" attitude of the court, I think they'll do whatever benefits big insurance the most.

JustASpectator · 06-16-2012, 07:45 AM

5-4 striking down the entire law. The Dow drops several hundo after announcement is made.