Thread: Why Obama's Healthcare Law Is Constitutional

Originally Posted by ARealConservative

agreed, but it is now part of our law.

Considering the fact that case is probably part of the review for the whole mandate issue, is it within the power the the court to go back in time and pronounce that ruling invalid?

Originally Posted by Arbo

Considering the fact that case is probably part of the review for the whole mandate issue, is it within the power the the court to go back in time and pronounce that ruling invalid?

No. The only time a court can rule a verdict invalid is if it 1: refers to a criminal case in which a person is convicted of a crime 2: Its not SCOTUS.

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

No. The only time a court can rule a verdict invalid is if it 1: refers to a criminal case in which a person is convicted of a crime 2: Its not SCOTUS.

So you are saying there is no way for the SCOTUS to overrule a previous SCOTUS ruling?

Originally Posted by Arbo

So you are saying there is no way for the SCOTUS to overrule a previous SCOTUS ruling?

AFAIK. I know of no case in which SCOTUS overruled its predecessor's rulings. In fact SCOTUS relies heavily upon past decisions to make their current decisions.

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

AFAIK. I know of no case in which SCOTUS overruled its predecessor's rulings. In fact SCOTUS relies heavily upon past decisions to make their current decisions.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CON...AN-2002-12.pdf

Originally Posted by Arbo

So you are saying there is no way for the SCOTUS to overrule a previous SCOTUS ruling?

they should and have (separate but equal)

Lefties bank on this leftward ratchet of jurisprudence meaning leftwing nuts like the FDR court increase government power and then subsequent Conservative courts affirm the nonsense as precedent. Crap needs to be flushed even if it has been stinking up our lawbooks and lower courts for decades; Wickard v. Filburn stinks to high heaven

Originally Posted by ARealConservative

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CON...AN-2002-12.pdf

Thanks. Guess I was wrong.

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

The difference is that private individuals do not have to pay money to private companies. That is a huge difference. If an individual is required by our government to buy something from a private company then the government can require you to buy from other private buisnesses. With a tax you pay the government and go to what ever private buisness that you want, or not, no interference.

Taxing someone more for not purchasing health insurance is the same as finning them for not purchasing health insurance was my point, and the point made by the court when they requested to hear the arguments surrounding the tax.

Originally Posted by xpiher

Taxing someone more for not purchasing health insurance is the same as finning them for not purchasing health insurance was my point, and the point made by the court when they requested to hear the arguments surrounding the tax.

A point that doesn't take the whole situation into consideration.

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

AFAIK. I know of no case in which SCOTUS overruled its predecessor's rulings. In fact SCOTUS relies heavily upon past decisions to make their current decisions.

Huh? It's happened many, many times.