• 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!

How will SCOTUS rule on the Individual Mandate?

How will SCOTUS rule on the Individual Mandate?

  • SCOTUS will uphold the Individual Mandate

    Votes: 6 14.6%
  • SCOTUS will strike down the Individual Mandate

    Votes: 24 58.5%
  • I honestly believe it is too close to call, literally 50/50 either way

    Votes: 11 26.8%

  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
How will SCOTUS rule on the Individual Mandate?

Not what you interpret the legality/Constitutionality to be.
Not how you think they should rule.
Not how you want them to rule.

How do you think they actually WILL rule?
 
All the conservative leaning judges will rule that its unconstitutional to force Americans to buy health insurance and all the liberal leaning judges will rule its constitutional to force Americans to buy health insurance.
 
5 to 4 ruling. It will die.
 
Hard to believe it could be upheld at this point, not only is it comprehensive federal coercion at a unprecedented level, the legal argument in favor of the mandate was piss poor.
 
Hard to believe it could be upheld at this point, not only is it comprehensive federal coercion at a unprecedented level, the legal argument in favor of the mandate was piss poor.

Mandate Dies, rest of the law stays in the ruling, but dies over time.
 
I voted 50/50. I'm conflicted on which way I want it to go. Personally I wouldn't mind the mandate. However, if we don't or can't mandate that people get medical insurance, we'll have to keep the 'self' insured out of our ER's unless they arrive with money. Not cash, but some money deposited somewhere that can be debited by the care giver. I've posted before about a Tea Party family we chatted with at a demonstration that was in debt more than $60,000 to a hospital we could see from the federal building.
 
I'd like to believe that it will survive, but it seems unlikely. However, the probability of the individual mandate being struck down is hovering around 60-65% on InTrade, so I am hopeful that I might be wrong.

Ultimately, I don't think that the most telling sign was the barrage of hostile questions that Kennedy/Roberts directed toward the solicitor-general; that's par for the course in a Supreme Court argument and doesn't necessarily have any bearing on their ultimate ruling. I don't even think the most telling sign was the hemming and hawing that Roberts and Kennedy were doing (who knows if it was just to appear like they were carefully weighing the options before striking it down, or if they legitimately had doubts). I think the most telling sign was the fact that the Court appeared to be giving serious consideration to striking down the entire law, and that they even agreed to hear the truly absurd legal argument against the Medicaid provisions. I don't think that they'll actually strike down the entire law or the Medicaid provisions (God help us if they do), but by seriously entertaining these arguments, the conservative justices opened the Overton Window a bit wider. I think this makes it more likely that they'll strike down the individual mandate.
 
I want to believe that it is about the "law" and that it will be upheld, but based on prior behavior, I believe the SCOTUS will vote their party affiliation and it will be ruled unconstitutional.
 
I want to believe that it is about the "law" and that it will be upheld, but based on prior behavior, I believe the SCOTUS will vote their party affiliation and it will be ruled unconstitutional.
why can't it be about the law when it's overturned? So far, the only people bringing up partisanship is the liberals...for the bill...Only conservatives seem to have arguments ABOUT THE LAW ITSELF, regardless of what party the president is.

I don't see why you would discredit the supreme court, if it's against you. from the point of view of a justice, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. So the question I'm wondering is, in that circumstance, why do you think a justice would care about politics?
 
Last edited:
why can't it be about the law when it's overturned?
The very fact that Thomas, whose wife has been campaigning against it, did not recuse himself is one good reason. Two lower "conservative" judges have already ruled it Constitutional.
I don't see why you would discredit the supreme court, if it's against you. from the point of view of a justice, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. So the question I'm wondering is, in that circumstance, why do you think a justice would care about politics?

It was in the past that justice didn't care about politics, but we've seen a concerted effort on the part of Republicans (since the election of George W. Bush) to make all Supreme Justices Republican. It is obvious that they want to pass legislation that goes against what the majority of Americans want, and the only way they could get them enacted is by going to a right-leaning Supreme Court and having them rule in their favor.
 
The very fact that Thomas, whose wife has been campaigning against it, did not recuse himself is one good reason. Two lower "conservative" judges have already ruled it Constitutional.
So? Other courts with liberal justices have declared unconstitutional, otherwise, why the hell do you think it's worked its way up to the supreme court? I think the score was 2-2, overall, in the lower courts.
It was in the past that justice didn't care about politics, but we've seen a concerted effort on the part of Republicans (since the election of George W. Bush) to make all Supreme Justices Republican. It is obvious that they want to pass legislation that goes against what the majority of Americans want, and the only way they could get them enacted is by going to a right-leaning Supreme Court and having them rule in their favor.
and liberals haven't done that? really? Remember FDR when he tried to pack the supreme court?

regardless, the point is moot because these justices were confirmed by a senate that was elected by a majority of voters. If you have a conservative president, obviously he's going to appoint conservative justices. That's just a given, it has nothing to do with partisanship, but the philosophy that they ascribe to. If you don't like that then....

Oh yea, that's write, liberals don't think that conservatism is a viable political philosophy. I forgot.
 
Last edited:
So? Other courts with liberal justices have declared unconstitutional, otherwise, why the hell do you think it's worked its way up to the supreme court? I think the score was 2-2, overall, in the lower courts.
That is a lie. The two other judges who ruled it unconstitutional were conservative judges. Vinson from Florida and Hudson from Virginia are both conservative judges.

and liberals haven't done that? really? Remember FDR when he tried to pack the supreme court?
I don't remember any case where the Supreme Court was so negatively deemed as the 2000 ruling over the election.

regardless, the point is moot because these justices were confirmed by a senate that was elected by a majority of voters. If you have a conservative president, obviously he's going to appoint conservative justices. That's just a given, it has nothing to do with partisanship, but the philosophy that they ascribe to. If you don't like that then....
That may be true, but when they start interpreting the law based on their party's opinion, the whole country suffers.

Oh yea, that's write, liberals don't think that conservatism is a viable political philosophy. I forgot.
Conservatism is fine, extreme radical conservatism (which is what the Republican party has become) is a detriment to Democracy.
 
That may be true, but when they start interpreting the law based on their party's opinion, the whole country suffers.
So would you say this when the Court agrees with liberal decisions or of the court is packed with liberal judges?
Conservatism is fine, extreme radical conservatism (which is what the Republican party has become) is a detriment to Democracy.
With Mitt Romney being the forerunner right now in the primary I don't think it's fair to say that about the Republicans.
 
That is a lie. The two other judges who ruled it unconstitutional were conservative judges. Vinson from Florida and Hudson from Virginia are both conservative judges.
Wrong, I said WITH liberal justices. That wasn't a lie, you just jumped to conclusions ;) One justice alone can't rule in an appeals court.
I don't remember any case where the Supreme Court was so negatively deemed as the 2000 ruling over the election.
Well, they had to decide something. They did, with their view of the constitution, and because you think your grasp of jurisprudence is better than theirs, you demonize them. I disagree with Roe V. Wade, but I don't discredit their decisions as "partisan". They just have a wrong view.
That may be true, but when they start interpreting the law based on their party's opinion, the whole country suffers.
who says they do though? this is simply your judgement because you don't like the way they rule. If they uphold this law, I will call you out if you somehow try to say "they put up partisan politics".
Conservatism is fine, extreme radical conservatism (which is what the Republican party has become) is a detriment to Democracy.
It's radical to oppose obamacare, gotcha.
 
...

With Mitt Romney being the forerunner right now in the primary I don't think it's fair to say that (extreme radical conservatism) about the Republicans.

Yup, the real conservatives like Romney the best.
 
a government mandate compelling citizens to purchase goods or services from privately owned vendors deserves to be found unConstitutional
it's terrible precedent
 
I admit that I didn't hear the entire audio of all of the hearing, but from what I heard, I can't imagine them upholding the individual mandate.
 
So let me understand, Under the Hussein Obama plan you can't be turned down for and existing condition. So don't get any insurance and if you get a bad illness get the insurance then???????

It reminds me of Pelosi saying to her caucas vote for the bill now and read it letter.:doh
 
Mandate Dies, rest of the law stays in the ruling, but dies over time.

Unless they find another way to pay for it. I'd like to see the public option return. Wonder if we could discuss that without the death panel lie?
 
So let me understand, Under the Hussein Obama plan you can't be turned down for and existing condition. So don't get any insurance and if you get a bad illness get the insurance then???????

It reminds me of Pelosi saying to her caucas vote for the bill now and read it letter.:doh
The point is that you can't be turned down because of a preexisting condition. So there is no don't get insurance part of your story. Without Obamacare you can be turned down for many reasons.
 
The point is that you can't be turned down because of a preexisting condition. So there is no don't get insurance part of your story. Without Obamacare you can be turned down for many reasons.

It also was an attempt to get everyone to pay for health care. In a round about way the 12+million illegal aliens will still recieve health care without insurance. The difference is no federal dollars will be used to assist the States. States and the hospitials will be stuck with the bill.

I hope the SC strikes the law down.
 
It also was an attempt to get everyone to pay for health care. In a round about way the 12+million illegal aliens will still recieve health care without insurance. The difference is no federal dollars will be used to assist the States. States and the hospitials will be stuck with the bill.

I hope the SC strikes the law down.

They are now. Right now.
 
So let me understand, Under the Hussein Obama plan you can't be turned down for and existing condition. So don't get any insurance and if you get a bad illness get the insurance then???????

That's the whole reason that the individual mandate was put into the bill, genius. To PREVENT exactly that situation.
 
Back
Top Bottom