• 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 wil SCOTUS decision on Obamacare Be?

What does SCOTUS decide?


  • Total voters
    24

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,493
Reaction score
39,818
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Options taken from SCOTUS Blog.


...[T]he Court [...] has four issues before it — three of which are somewhat clustered, and one of which stands somewhat (but not entirely) alone...

[T]he individual mandate is one of the clustered issues. The second is whether the Court has the authority to decide the fate of the mandate. And the third is whether, if the mandate is struck down as unconstitutional, other parts of the massive Affordable Care Act must fall with it — if any.

The authority-to-rule question turns upon the meaning of a section of the federal Anti-Injunction Act, first enacted by Congress in 1867... If the AIA is found to be binding in this case, then the mandate’s fate (if not repealed by Congress in the meantime) could not be decided until after it goes into effect in 2014. The final answer might not be known until sometime in 2015, after another round of court review...

But suppose the Court were to rule that AIA does not apply... Then the Court would have to move on to the second of the clustered issues: is the mandate, in fact, unconstitutional? If the Court upholds it as constitutional, that makes it unnecessary to decide the third item in the cluster: what else falls with the mandate, or does none of it fall? But if the mandate is struck down, the Court has to get to that third issue (which is called the “severability” question, because it involves deciding whether the invalid part of a law can be sliced off from all, or at least part, of the rest)...

This brings the summing-up to the fourth issue, in some ways separated. That issue is whether Congress exceeded its constitutional powers by enacting, as part of the new law, a very wide expansion of eligibility for the government-subsidized Medicaid program of providing medical care to the poor. This may be thought of as separate from the clustered three issues, because a decision not to decide the mandate and severability issues (because the AIA prevents such a ruling) would not affect the need to decide the challenge to the broader Medicaid eligibility....

The Court must then decide whether to do something it has not done to a federal law in three-quarters of a century: strike down a law that Congress enacted by using its power under the Constitution’s Spending Clause. (The mandate part of the law was based upon the Commerce Clause, not the Spending Clause.) Three times since the last use of the Court’s power to nullify a federal law was used against a Spending Clause measure, the Court has said that it might be possible that the conditions Congress imposed on someone receiving federal funds were so onerous that they would amount to coercion. In other words, the conditions actually forced the recipient of money to make a choice it would not otherwise make...


Predict Ye Now And Stand Known For Ye'r Thoughts Tomorrah. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
bah. COWARDS!!!
 
Fine...I'll bite here...

I think the Supreme Court will uphold the legislation. I believe the fix is in for it. Obamacare will be our national healthcare system, and the high courts will not do anything to overturn it.

Does that mean I think its right? No, but I just see things going that way. This victory for Obama will be huge for the short term success of his never ending campaign season.
 
I believe just the mandate will fall.
 
I voted for the the whole bill passes. The "mandate" is so weak ($100 fine for some, and no way to enforce even that) that it can not be unconstitutional and the Justices will not strike it down.
 
Last edited:
I think theres a strong possibility the mandate fails
 
I predict the mandate will be ruled unconstitutional. Although I can see a scenario or two where maybe Justices Roberts and Kennedy rule it Constitutional, I don't think its likely anymore after the oral arguments.
 
I am betting that after a spirited discussion, they decided that it could go either way, one or two are on the line(Roberts and kennedy) and really divided in how they want to rule, some one says "well, just punting it is a nice, legal, safe, convenient way to handle this", and they go that route.

I am not betting much more than about a penny, but that is what I suspect will happen.
 
1. I think the whole thing will be thrown out;
2. If that doesn't happen then the mandate will be declared unconstitutional and the rest will stay.

Anybody here have an office pool on this?
 

I voted "Whole Bills Stays", which maybe just wishful thinking on my part.
This SCOTUS is suspect,IMO, allowing personal politics to influence their thinking. I personally think that Clarance Thomas should recuse himself, for his wife's paid involvment with anti ObamaCare causes. :peace

bah. COWARDS!!!
 
I voted for the the whole bill passes. The "mandate" is so weak ($100 fine for some, and no way to enforce even that) that it can not be unconstitutional and the Justices will not strike it down.
The cost associated with the mandate should and predictably will have absolutely zero effect in the determination of it's legality.
 

I voted "Whole Bills Stays", which maybe just wishful thinking on my part.
This SCOTUS is suspect,IMO, allowing personal politics to influence their thinking. I personally think that Clarance Thomas should recuse himself, for his wife's paid involvment with anti ObamaCare causes. :peace

What will be the next "must buy" item that congress comes up with? Perhaps a little green electric cart with a wind/solar charger made, just by chance, in Nevada? Perhaps a breathalizer to install in every car to prevent DUI/DWI? There is NO END once you decide that the federal gov't can FORCE all citizens to buy something or pay a fine. USA, USA, USA...
 

I voted "Whole Bills Stays", which maybe just wishful thinking on my part.
This SCOTUS is suspect,IMO, allowing personal politics to influence their thinking. I personally think that Clarance Thomas should recuse himself, for his wife's paid involvment with anti ObamaCare causes. :peace

Maybe as many as four Chief Justices may have a conflict of interest with the Obamacare ruling.

Supreme Court Conflicts With Obamacare - Business Insider
 
The problem is that this Court rules politically and not Constitutionally. If they go by precedent there is no possible way this could be ruled unconstitutional. But the Roberts Court is corrupt.
 
I predict that there will be many peopel claimign the result is unjust and that this is proof of how the judicary is out of control, This will happen regardless of what they decide.
 
What will be the next "must buy" item that congress comes up with? Perhaps a little green electric cart with a wind/solar charger made, just by chance, in Nevada? Perhaps a breathalizer to install in every car to prevent DUI/DWI? There is NO END once you decide that the federal gov't can FORCE all citizens to buy something or pay a fine. USA, USA, USA...

You can't force someone to buy something they already have, so you mean you can't force someone to pay for their healthcare......it's in the Constitution. Free HC for all. If only it were true huh?
 
Okay guys, I got my guess. It is held constitutional. Magic I know.
 
Okay guys, I got my guess. It is held constitutional. Magic I know.

you da man!
I`d liek to point out that I said peopel would bitch and complain about it. I nailed that one!
 
To me it's an issue that further exemplifies the fact that the People have no say. According to Rasmussen, 52% of the American People said no. The administration said 'lol, **** you, I'm the government'.
 
I find it none of the poll options where right. This decision was unexpected. I will point out that I mentioned Roberts as one of the potential swing votes, but other than that, I was way off.
 
Back
Top Bottom