• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Will SCOTUS Decide About Obamacare?

What in a nutshell will SCOTUS' decision be?


  • Total voters
    25

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,485
Reaction score
39,816
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I"m betting for a narrow ruling that overturns just the individual mandate. Sad, because I'd like to see the entire, 2,000+ Page Putrid monstrosity heaved overboard, but I'm thinking Anthony Kennedy the Court will see simply striking the mandate as the preferable political option.
 
The law was already a mess - comes from being a hodgepodge. But yes, without the mandate, functionally much of it falls apart even faster. I simply don't think that the Supremes will take that seriously into account.
 
The individual mandate is needed and I also think the Supreme Court will declare it legal.
I think everyone should have to buy health insurance given the inevitability that we will all need healthcare.
 
The individual mandate is needed and I also think the Supreme Court will declare it legal.
I think everyone should have to buy health insurance given the inevitability that we will all need healthcare.
The government does not have the right to force commerce upon private citizens.
 
The government does not have the right to force commerce upon private citizens.

Congress has the power to tax for general welfare.
Finally, Congress has the power to tax for the general welfare and need not tie its taxing provisions to any other enumerated power. As those who fail to purchase health insurance need only pay more income tax, the new law is an exercise of the taxing power and would be valid even if it were not authorized by the necessary and proper or commerce clauses.

Why Obama's Healthcare Law Is Constitutional | The Nation
 
I"m betting for a narrow ruling that overturns just the individual mandate. Sad, because I'd like to see the entire, 2,000+ Page Putrid monstrosity heaved overboard, but I'm thinking Anthony Kennedy the Court will see simply striking the mandate as the preferable political option.

I do not think any one knows at this point. While rulings have been so far mostly along ideological lines, here has been enough exceptions that it is not safe to bet an almost any of the justices. It really is a complicated issue in terms of constitutionality, and I think the fact that the judges who have rules so far are very split shows that.
 
The individual mandate is the make or break. If that is gone, it deflates the entire bill. Its like the reactor inside the Death Star. Sure, the Death Star's still there, but it has no power and its big gun is rendered impotent (no innuendo lol)
 
I would be surprised if the mandate survives.
 
The individual mandate is needed and I also think the Supreme Court will declare it legal.
I think everyone should have to buy health insurance given the inevitability that we will all need healthcare.
All but the wealthy conservatives, of course.
 
The individual mandate is needed and I also think the Supreme Court will declare it legal.
I think everyone should have to buy health insurance given the inevitability that we will all need healthcare.

Yeah, I agree. Same with toilet paper, we should all have to buy it because, inevitably, we will all need it.:roll:
 
They definitely won't overturn the entire thing. That would be a quite radical step considering many decades of judicial precedent that would support upholding it. The question is whether or not they will strike down the individual mandate. We'll probably have a better indication of that during the hearings, since justices often give clues as to which way they will rule. But for now, InTrade suggests that the probability is 39% that they will strike down the individual mandate, and 61% that they uphold it.

I also think that conservatives should be careful what they wish for (especially since the individual mandate was a conservative idea). If the individual mandate is struck down and the new health care system becomes unworkable, do you really think that people are going to be demanding that we go back to a system where insurers were allowed to deny people coverage for preexisting conditions? I think it's more likely that it would hasten the arrival of true public health insurance.
 
Last edited:
I guarantee they uphold it, that is all. next complaint mr. republicans? what deed obama doo neow?
 
and in testimony before Congress, which means that key members of the Administration are guilty of perjury if indeed they now say it is:


 
I also think that conservatives should be careful what they wish for (especially since the individual mandate was a conservative idea). If the individual mandate is struck down and the new health care system becomes unworkable, do you really think that people are going to be demanding that we go back to a system where insurers were allowed to deny people coverage for preexisting conditions? I think it's more likely that it would hasten the arrival of true public health insurance.

Not a point which has a thing to do with constitutionality. If it's unconstitutional (and I can think of more than one way that it is), then it needs to go, regardless of any of this.

Constitutionality isn't a utilitarian proposition.
 
I guarantee they uphold it, that is all.

Of course you do. I'm sure you "guarantee" that liberal ideas/issues/candidates will win everything else, too, whatever it happens to be.
 
I do not think any one knows at this point. While rulings have been so far mostly along ideological lines, here has been enough exceptions that it is not safe to bet an almost any of the justices. It really is a complicated issue in terms of constitutionality, and I think the fact that the judges who have rules so far are very split shows that.
This is about right. Scalia is center right somewhat interpretist, Roberts and Thomas are originalists, Kagen/Ginsberg are hard left, Stevens/Breyer/Kennedy are total wildcards. That makeup insures one thing, nothing is certain.
 
If they actually do their job correctly then at the very least the mandate will be stricken out. Which of course means that the rest of the law will fall because it all centers on that mandate. The only part that might still be effective is the part that prohibits insurance companies from denying pre-existing conditions. Though its possible that that may be stricken out as well.
 
The government does not have the right to force commerce upon private citizens.

Government does that every day. It's called car insurance. Oh, and one might say, "Yes, but I only need car insurance if I drive..." And Maggie would say, "You'll only health insurance if you breath."

I think the Supreme Court will find it most of it constitutional.

I just hope they read the damn thing.
 
Government does that every day. It's called car insurance.

It's not about only needing it if you drive. It's about it only being REQUIRED if you drive, and then it's only about your liability to others, not yourself, and only if you drive on public roads.

The mandate requires you to buy health insurance for yourself, period. It's required simply to live.
 
The government does not have the right to force commerce upon private citizens.

sure they do.

"if you see doctors, you must have health insurance"

"if you own a car, you must have car insuance"

"if you live in a flood-prone area, you must have flood insurance"

"you must have a smoke and CO alarm in your home"
 
Government does that every day. It's called car insurance. Oh, and one might say, "Yes, but I only need car insurance if I drive..." And Maggie would say, "You'll only health insurance if you breath."

I think the Supreme Court will find it most of it constitutional.

I just hope they read the damn thing.

Two problems with this.

1: The car insurance is not federally mandated. It's state mandated. Two different animals.

2: No one should be forced to buy from privately owned companies just because they breath. That sets a VERY bad precident which should be avoided at ALL costs. Because if it is set then what is next? Forced to buy nothing but healthfoods? Forced to buy vitamins? A cancer patient forced to buy medical care instead of just denying it so that they can be free of all the pain? Afterall, its all for the general welfare of people since people obviously can't make their own life decisions.
 
let's also remember that "Obamacare" doesn't require ALL Americans, to buy health insurance. Many folks are waved from that responsibility.
 
Back
Top Bottom