Quantcast

Obamacare ruled unconstitutional. Did it really take a judge to figure that one out?

Simmering Frog 2010/12/14 00:07:33
Yep
Nope!
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Deputy Chief 2010/12/14 14:00:13
    Nope!
    Deputy Chief
    +1
    It was obvious from the onset that the government mandating that the people purchase something they don't want was unconstitutional. Don't forget that this was an Obama backdoor deal, he was pushing his socialistic/communistic agenda on the american people despite the fact that it was unconstitutional. The liberals will press on to appeal this ruling, however, they WILL lose!!!!
  • mwg0735 2010/12/14 12:56:22
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2010/12/14 03:17:06
    Nope!
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    NOPE, because it's not going to be ruled unconstitutional. You have a judge who is in bed with Cuccinelli financially and otherwise who was directly involved in lobbying against the health care bill. Twice as many federal judges have found it to be CONSTITUTIONAL than haven't, and 14 more suits that were thrown out before they ever got to be heard.

    "Jack Balkin, a constitutional law professor at Yale Law School, extends that argument. In a recent blog post, he notes that in the Raich case, Justice Scalia found that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to regulate, as Balkin put it, "even non-economic activities if it believes that this is necessary to make its regulation of interstate commerce effective" (itals TPM's). People who don't buy health insurance, Balkin argues, aren't simply "doing nothing," as Rivkin, Barnett et al. claim. These people pass on their health-care costs by going to the emergency room, or buying over-the-counter cures. "All these activities are economic, and they have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce," writes Balkin.

    Several respected conservative legal experts essentially agree that the court would have to radically break with past rulings to strike down the law. John McGinnis, a former Bush 41 administration Justice Department official ...
    NOPE, because it's not going to be ruled unconstitutional. You have a judge who is in bed with Cuccinelli financially and otherwise who was directly involved in lobbying against the health care bill. Twice as many federal judges have found it to be CONSTITUTIONAL than haven't, and 14 more suits that were thrown out before they ever got to be heard.

    "Jack Balkin, a constitutional law professor at Yale Law School, extends that argument. In a recent blog post, he notes that in the Raich case, Justice Scalia found that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to regulate, as Balkin put it, "even non-economic activities if it believes that this is necessary to make its regulation of interstate commerce effective" (itals TPM's). People who don't buy health insurance, Balkin argues, aren't simply "doing nothing," as Rivkin, Barnett et al. claim. These people pass on their health-care costs by going to the emergency room, or buying over-the-counter cures. "All these activities are economic, and they have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce," writes Balkin.

    Several respected conservative legal experts essentially agree that the court would have to radically break with past rulings to strike down the law. John McGinnis, a former Bush 41 administration Justice Department official and a past winner of an award from the Federalist Society, told TPMmuckraker that the court could rule in favor of the AGs only by taking a radical Originalist view of jurisprudence -- one that all but ignores precedent. "I think the only person who shares [that view] is Justice Thomas." said McGinnis, now a constitutional law scholar at Northwestern Law School. "It's a very difficult argument to make under current precedent."
    (more)
  • Simmeri... ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2010/12/14 03:26:07
    Simmering Frog
    It already was.
  • Gracie - Proud Conservative 2010/12/14 02:40:53
    Nope!
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    I think the picture says it all!
  • Isma'ila (God has heard)! 2010/12/14 02:40:25
    Nope!
    Isma'ila (God has heard)!
    We the people knew that already!
  • Billy Board 2010/12/14 00:14:21
    Yep
    Billy Board
    Now the real test will begin. Supreme Court, here we come!! real test begin supreme court health care case at supreme court
  • Simmeri... Billy B... 2010/12/14 00:20:43
    Simmering Frog
    +1


    Yep! Here we come!
  • Billy B... Simmeri... 2010/12/14 00:26:37
    Billy Board
    Hopefully she will be ill when the case is called! :-))
  • Dagon 2010/12/14 00:10:33
  • Simmeri... Dagon 2010/12/14 00:14:08 (edited)
    Simmering Frog
    +2
    If this is not overturned, it is the death of the country.
  • Isma'il... Simmeri... 2010/12/14 02:41:02
    Isma'ila (God has heard)!
    Death being the operative word.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/23 14:55:06

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals