This morning, as expected, the Supreme Court agreed to take up Obamacare. What was unexpected — and unprecedented in modern times — is that it set aside five-and-a-half hours for the argument. Here are the issues the Court will decide:
Whether Congress has the power to enact the individual mandate. – 2 hours
Whether the challenge to the individual mandate is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. – 1 hour
Whether and to what extent the individual mandate, if unconstitutional, is severable from the rest of the Act. – 90 minutes
Whether the new conditions on all federal Medicaid funding (expanding eligibility, greater coverage, etc.) constitute an unconstitutional coercion of the states. – 1 hour
In addition to the length of argument, which we can expect to be heard over multiple days in March or April, perhaps the biggest surprise is the Court’s decision to review that fourth issue. There is no circuit split here — in large part because 26 states are already in this one suit — and no judge has yet voted to uphold what also be described as a claim that the federal government is “commandeering” the states to do its bidding. The Court probably took the case precisely because so many states have brought it; that former solicitor general Paul Clement is their lawyer also doesn’t hurt. As a practical matter, this could be a bigger deal than the individual mandate because, while Congress had never before tried an economic mandate, it certainly does attach plenty of strings to the grants it gives states — and the spending power is thought to be even broader than the power to regulate commerce.
In any event, the Supreme Court has now set the stage for the most significant case since Roe v. Wade. Indeed, this litigation implicates the future of the Republic as Roe never did. On both the individual-mandate and Medicaid-coercion issues, the Court will decide whether the Constitution’s structure — federalism and enumeration of powers — is judicially enforceable or whether Congress is the sole judge of its own authority. In other words, do we have a government of laws or men?
No you don't.
This what I wrote in a previous post in this thread:
<<Not speaking to this dispute specifically but more generally over time as more appointments to the SC are made.>>
"over time", i.e. looking forward. Get it?
I was not referring older appointments.
Recent ones yes and future ones especially so.
As far as a "bot", you would fit far better into that category along with the bleeting sheeple.
vote for your establishment pols and you get what you deserve.
RP has been the most consistent of the bunch but most won't support him because he doesn't 'look' presidential.
Pretty shallow , sad and pathetic when people vote for image and then complain and wonder why they don't get substance.
No substance, consistency or adherence to Constitutional values with Obama, Romney, Perry, Cain et al.
Yes, unless RP gets elected, the other candidates are owned and any theoretical SC appointment by them would be subject to the wishes of people that own them ...and they don't care a whit about the Constitution.
In fact, they want to see the effect of the Constitution watered down.
Follow the money....it doesn't matter whether dem or rep.
One thing that is consistent with RP is he believes and follows the Constitution.
And that's his problem.
The MSM helped put Obama in power and they are equally likely to support other 'establishment' republican politicians but not Ron Paul.
Ask yourself why that is.
What's the point of even having a Constitution, Federal Government and State Governments if Obama just wants to be king? Do States have any rights at all or must everything be crammed down their throats by the Federal Government? What if the citizens of Texas or Virginia want to live differently than the citizens of Taxachusetts or California? Are they entitled to live as they want or must Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Biden and their merry band of idiots tell us how to live?
The US constitution unfortunately was written for a people with a different time, with a different moral and ethical standard. The free thinking judges of the 20th and 21st centuries are not able to correctly interpret the intention of the founding fathers.
Yes, a serious situation. In fact, the supreme court judges, since they have the power to interpret how the law applies actually have more power than the lawmakers themselves.
Unfortunately I don't think it's any longer about about law and its interpretation.
Now SC decisions are about partisan politics rendering law meaningless.
Get ready for decisions that are increasingly incoherenent with the constitution as politics and ideology come more into play on both sides.
And my guess is future appointments to the SC will become even more partisan rather than on merit.
The president himself understands this since he's earned very little in his whole life based on merit so what would you expect from his appointments?