Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Will the conservative Justices who heretofore believed in a sweeping Commerce Clause uphold that view with respect to the individual mandate? Will the Democratic Congress's idiotic failure to include a severability clause doom the entire law? Discuss.

hmm i say they find the mandate unconstitutional but everything else is okay. Should be interesting none the less!

Seahawks08 wrote:hmm i say they find the mandate unconstitutional but everything else is okay. Should be interesting none the less!

This

-
You lie

[youtube][/youtube]

All of them lie...noob.

Seahawks08 wrote:All of them lie...noob.

Until they don't wish re-election like that guy from NC. He would root for the Taliban over Duke.

grizzaholic wrote:

Seahawks08 wrote:All of them lie...noob.

Until they don't wish re-election like that guy from NC. He would root for the Taliban over Duke.

I would too...

And against UGAy.

Seahawks08 wrote:hmm i say they find the mandate unconstitutional but everything else is okay. Should be interesting none the less!

If the mandate fails, Obamacare is pretty much DOA.

Seahawks08 wrote:hmm i say they find the mandate unconstitutional but everything else is okay. Should be interesting none the less!

And if the mandate is shot down, there's no f***ing way Obamacare will bring down health care costs. It was highly questionable that it would to begin with.

There's also the Anti-Injunction Act issue to consider. If the Supreme Court buys that one, it will have to "kick the can down the road" until it receives an appeal from a person aggrieved by the actual operation of the law, after 2014.

I do find it interesting because of the previous broad interpretations of the commerce clause that most experts seem to think that the liberal judges are a lock and every conservative judge with the exception of Thomas may go with the law being constitutional.

Since I am in the process of moving, I haven't paid much attention. I heard that Kagan recused. True?

Typically I am not the conspiracy theory kind (and of course I am not questioning her integrity ) but that makes me think she knows something

While at the OBGYN last week with my wife, I walked to the counter to pay the $25 Co-Pay. The lady said it was "free" under Obamacare. I told her thanks, but it isn't free, she's getting the money from somewhere. She said no, Obama made things like this free. She doesn't get it, nothing is free.

OL FU wrote:I do find it interesting because of the previous broad interpretations of the commerce clause that most experts seem to think that the liberal judges are a lock and every conservative judge with the exception of Thomas may go with the law being constitutional.

Since I am in the process of moving, I haven't paid much attention. I heard that Kagan recused. True?

Typically I am not the conspiracy theory kind (and of course I am not questioning her integrity ) but that makes me think she knows something

I'm pretty sure she does know something. When the court decides which cases to hear, they often discuss the cases pretty extensively. Each justice pretty much knows where the others stand on any particular case before it is heard.

Chief Justice Roberts is a pro-Commerce Clause guy. I didn't put any bet down in Vegas on the outcome of this one.

Ivytalk wrote:Chief Justice Roberts is a pro-Commerce Clause guy. I didn't put any bet down in Vegas on the outcome of this one.

And not that I think Scalia will vote to uphold it, but the Federal Government has been citing to a Scalia majority decision as authority to uphold the law.

You never know.

CitadelGrad wrote:

OL FU wrote:I do find it interesting because of the previous broad interpretations of the commerce clause that most experts seem to think that the liberal judges are a lock and every conservative judge with the exception of Thomas may go with the law being constitutional.

Since I am in the process of moving, I haven't paid much attention. I heard that Kagan recused. True?

Typically I am not the conspiracy theory kind (and of course I am not questioning her integrity ) but that makes me think she knows something

I'm pretty sure she does know something. When the court decides which cases to hear, they often discuss the cases pretty extensively. Each justice pretty much knows where the others stand on any particular case before it is heard.

So she did recuse herself?

OL FU wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
I'm pretty sure she does know something. When the court decides which cases to hear, they often discuss the cases pretty extensively. Each justice pretty much knows where the others stand on any particular case before it is heard.

So she did recuse herself?

If she did, I'm not aware of it. She probably should have.

OL FU wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
I'm pretty sure she does know something. When the court decides which cases to hear, they often discuss the cases pretty extensively. Each justice pretty much knows where the others stand on any particular case before it is heard.

So she did recuse herself?

Not from this one.

danefan wrote:

OL FU wrote:
So she did recuse herself?

Not from this one.

I need to listen to NPR a little more closely

Ivytalk wrote:Chief Justice Roberts is a pro-Commerce Clause guy. I didn't put any bet down in Vegas on the outcome of this one.

I agree ... but is there any precedent interpreting the CC as broad enough to permit Congress to compel individuals to participate in commerce (against their will)? I'm not aware of any. The Court has certainly held that Congress can prevent an individual from engaging in private conduct which may affect commerce even negligibly. But there is no decision of which I'm aware that goes as far as saying Congress can make you participate in commerce.

Based on a news account of today's arguments, it looks like the Anti-Injunction Act argument won't fly.

Ivytalk wrote:Based on a news account of today's arguments, it looks like the Anti-Injunction Act argument won't fly.

Plus, since this is potentially a 5-4 decision on the merits, I'd think practically speaking the side with the 5 votes is going to want to decide this NOW. Who knows who is going to fill the next vacancy on the Court (or who will nominate that Justice)?

JoltinJoe wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Based on a news account of today's arguments, it looks like the Anti-Injunction Act argument won't fly.

Plus, since this is potentially a 5-4 decision on the merits, I'd think practically speaking the side with the 5 votes is going to want to decide this NOW. Who knows who is going to fill the next vacancy on the Court (or who will nominate that Justice)?

Good point!

JoltinJoe wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Based on a news account of today's arguments, it looks like the Anti-Injunction Act argument won't fly.

Plus, since this is potentially a 5-4 decision on the merits, I'd think practically speaking the side with the 5 votes is going to want to decide this NOW. Who knows who is going to fill the next vacancy on the Court (or who will nominate that Justice)?

Doesn't Ginsburg have pancreatic cancer? I'd put my money on her.

OL FU wrote:

danefan wrote:
Not from this one.

I need to listen to NPR a little more closely

She's recusing herself but on a different case.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... -challenge