Appeals Court rules part of Obamacare unconstitutional......

[minionofmidas]

2)If the Supreme Court does review the constitutionality of the mandate, how will they rule?

I think it will be a 4-4-1 split, all conservatives objecting on the basis of the Commerce Clause, with Anthony Kennedy being the deciding vote.

What I want to know is what would happen if Kagan recuses herself and there is a 4-4 deadlock?

There's no reason for her to recuse herself.

I think she was somehow involved with the process, but I don't know what role that was.

That has never stopped the SC before.

[J. J.]

2)If the Supreme Court does review the constitutionality of the mandate, how will they rule?

I think it will be a 4-4-1 split, all conservatives objecting on the basis of the Commerce Clause, with Anthony Kennedy being the deciding vote.

What I want to know is what would happen if Kagan recuses herself and there is a 4-4 deadlock?

There's no reason for her to recuse herself.

I think she was somehow involved with the process, but I don't know what role that was.

That has never stopped the SC before.

There were a couple.  Thurgood Marshall recused himself from a case to which the NAACP was party, in the late 70's or early 80's.

I think to recuse herself, it will have to be more than, "Well, she in the building while they were doing it."  She indicated it would be on a case by case basis:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/19/kagan-would-weigh-health-law-recusal-case-case/

It depend on what, if any, involvement she had with it.  I would not be calling for it, unless there was substantial involvement on Kagan's part.

[minionofmidas]

That was a long time ago. Also, were these cases that could easily go 4-4 without him? Heck, if normal rules applied half the court might have recused themselves for Bush vs Gore. They don't.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A poorly constructed bill from a constitutional point of view.

If the bill has said: 

1) We put a new tax of $4000 a person on everybody living in America.
2) If you have health insurance from your employer, other government program, or buy it your self, we give you a $4000 tax credit.....
3) If you make below X $ a year, we give you a subsidy based upon the following formula.....

there would be no constitutionality issue.

BUT TAXES R EVUL !!!

[The Vorlon]

Kagan's need to recluse herself really boils down to the degree that "the buck stops here" with respect to her role as Attorney General.

One would presume that the Justice Department was asked for a review of ObamaCare, in the way that any major piece of legislation is reviewed -  Getting the various departments, including justice, to "Sign Off" is routine.

If Kagan herself signed off and said "yup, this thing is constitutional" - then reclusing herself should be blindingly obvious, but if, as she argues, some lower level staffer signed off and she had no direct involvement and or knowledge, then she might argue she has yet to present a formal opinion, etc....

Kagan is essentially making the Reagan/Olie North/Iran Contra argument.....  Yes things happened, but I didn't know about them....

I personally find it hard to believe that The Solicitor General of the United States never, ever, in any way was consulted or expressed an opinion about a piece of legislation that reworks 1/6th of the economy....  But that's just my opinion, I don't know what the legal standard is.

[The Vorlon]

A poorly constructed bill from a constitutional point of view.

If the bill has said: 

1) We put a new tax of $4000 a person on everybody living in America.
2) If you have health insurance from your employer, other government program, or buy it your self, we give you a $4000 tax credit.....
3) If you make below X $ a year, we give you a subsidy based upon the following formula.....

there would be no constitutionality issue.

BUT TAXES R EVUL !!!

Evil and unconstitutional are unrelated concepts - the two sets intersect but are not congruent.

[anvi]

The thing about the "penalty" is that the language of the bill doesn't give the IRS any legal authority to collect it.  So, if you don't buy health insurance but don't pay the penalty, nothing will happen to you.

Some "mandate."

[Landslide Lyndon]

1)If Kagan needs to recuse herself then so does Thomas since his wife is on the payroll of a company that lobbies for the repeal of HCR.

2)Has anyone actually read the article I posted or the notion that John Roberts will probably vote to uphold the mandate is considered so common that barely anyone notices it?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

2)Has anyone actually read the article I posted or the notion that John Roberts will probably vote to uphold the mandate is considered so common that barely anyone notices it?

Oh, I just noticed that wasn't an original posring from you. And here you had me thinking you were a keen observer of the Court.
 Really though, I've heard that before elsewhere, and I think Roberts vote to uphold depends very much on the way the argument goes. It' could go either way.

[BigSkyBob]

The problem isn't having health insurance. It's having to buy health insurance. It widens the scope of government authority and corporatism at the expense of liberty for individuals and communities. It leaves no room for people to, for example, pool their resources in other ways. Sure, there's an exemption for Amish or other "recognized religious sect" but that leaves a constitutional issue of its own.

Sooo... you think people should NOT buy health insurance?

It doesn't actually matter if you think people should buy health insurance. What matters is that the federal government is forcing people to buy something.

So we all agree everyone that can afford to should buy health insurance.  But Republicans will file a lawsuit against the idea anyway... "on principle."

Its amazing.  The government mandates something that is common sense that we ALL agree on and the Republicans file a lawsuit.

Whether it is "common sense" to buy health insurance is one question [for the judgment proof it is an open question].

What is also "common sense" is the position that once the sale of something is mandated, the providers of that something have significantly less incentive to control costs.

But, such discussion are irrelevent. The Constitution didn't create a federal government to do anything "sensible" whatever that means. It granted limited, enumerated powers to that federal government. Whether, or not, mandating individuals to buy the product of a private company is within those enumerated powers is the question being decided in the Courts. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Last I heard, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, et al spoke in audible tones. Even if you didn't listen, their voices were still there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which speaks more about you than them.

[Brittain33]

Kagan was Attorney General?

[J. J.]

What is also "common sense" is the position that once the sale of something is mandated, the providers of that something have significantly less incentive to control costs.

Wrong.  Where I live it is mandatory that every family purchase at least one car in order to get around.  Public transportation is nonexistent.  Automakers still compete on price around here.

Does the government force you to live there?  Do you have feet?

I lived in a town without a public library for 18 years.  Did the government require me to buy books?

[Landslide Lyndon]

What is also "common sense" is the position that once the sale of something is mandated, the providers of that something have significantly less incentive to control costs.

Wrong.  Where I live it is mandatory that every family purchase at least one car in order to get around.  Public transportation is nonexistent.  Automakers still compete on price around here.

Does the government force you to live there?  Do you have feet?

I lived in a town without a public library for 18 years.  Did the government require me to buy books?

Well, the federal government also doesn't force anyone to live in the United States. You can always go to Canada, Mexico, or even join the Amish.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Kagan was Attorney General?

She was Solicitor General, which is relevant since she may have doing preliminary work to defend a challenge against the law.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

What is also "common sense" is the position that once the sale of something is mandated, the providers of that something have significantly less incentive to control costs.

Wrong.  Where I live it is mandatory that every family purchase at least one car in order to get around.  Public transportation is nonexistent.  Automakers still compete on price around here.

Does the government force you to live there?  Do you have feet?

I lived in a town without a public library for 18 years.  Did the government require me to buy books?

Well, the federal government also doesn't force anyone to live in the United States. You can always go to Canada, Mexico, or even join the Amish.

You can't just move to Canada if you want. They have immigration rules too, you know.

[Landslide Lyndon]

What is also "common sense" is the position that once the sale of something is mandated, the providers of that something have significantly less incentive to control costs.

Wrong.  Where I live it is mandatory that every family purchase at least one car in order to get around.  Public transportation is nonexistent.  Automakers still compete on price around here.

Does the government force you to live there?  Do you have feet?

I lived in a town without a public library for 18 years.  Did the government require me to buy books?

Well, the federal government also doesn't force anyone to live in the United States. You can always go to Canada, Mexico, or even join the Amish.

You can't just move to Canada if you want. They have immigration rules too, you know.

I can't imagine that Canada's immigration rules are so burdensome and strict as to discourage an American determined to immigrate there.

And there is always the last option I mentioned.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

pretty easy to see there are at least 5 votes against Obamacare in the current SCOTUS.

Wonder how that would play out if the SCOTUS pulled an late October 2012 surprise and struck it down.

[Paul Kemp]

Wonder how that would play out if the SCOTUS pulled an late October 2012 surprise and struck it down.

It would be seen for what it is: a blatant political ploy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Wonder how that would play out if the SCOTUS pulled an late October 2012 surprise and struck it down.

It would be seen for what it is: a blatant political ploy.

a ploy?  it's been winding it's way through the courts for the last 2 years.   It would be a disaster for Obama, for he would have ZERO "accomplishments".

[J. J.]

What is also "common sense" is the position that once the sale of something is mandated, the providers of that something have significantly less incentive to control costs.

Wrong.  Where I live it is mandatory that every family purchase at least one car in order to get around.  Public transportation is nonexistent.  Automakers still compete on price around here.

Does the government force you to live there?  Do you have feet?

I lived in a town without a public library for 18 years.  Did the government require me to buy books?

Well, the federal government also doesn't force anyone to live in the United States. You can always go to Canada, Mexico, or even join the Amish.

There is an exit option, locally.  If I want to establish a bus company, I, and a few like-minded individuals can form one.

The Amish is basically something you have to be born into.

Sorry, but the claim that the "government" is "forcing" anyone to buy a car is silly, to the point of insanity.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Wonder how that would play out if the SCOTUS pulled an late October 2012 surprise and struck it down.

It would be seen for what it is: a blatant political ploy.

a ploy?  it's been winding it's way through the courts for the last 2 years.   It would be a disaster for Obama, for he would have ZERO "accomplishments".

A law that passed a year ago is winding it's way through the courts for two years?
Maybe it's time to put down the bible and start reading this.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

my tense was wrong, but by nov 2012, it will be 2.5 years...it will not be seen as a ploy, esp since several lower courts ruled against

[Landslide Lyndon]

my tense was wrong, but by nov 2012, it will be 2.5 years...it will not be seen as a ploy, esp since several lower courts ruled against

And about three times more have ruled in favor of it. So my book proposition still stands for you.

[BigSkyBob]

But, such discussion are irrelevent. The Constitution didn't create a federal government to do anything "sensible" whatever that means. It granted limited, enumerated powers to that federal government. Whether, or not, mandating individuals to buy the product of a private company is within those enumerated powers is the question being decided in the Courts. 

My point exactly.  There is no logical reason anyone wouldn't want to buy health insurance.  You purely oppose the law "just because."

1) Opposing Unconstitutional laws because they are unconstitutional is not "just because." Either we are a nation of laws, or men.


2) You are merely showing your intent to assign a strawman to intellectual opponents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

can't see the book...using mobile version...didn't bring laptop to boston this week