I wish that were true, but I read a news report saying the administration and health insurance companies are united together in wanting to reduce/eliminate the consumer protections in the ACA if the mandate is repealed since the protections will not be as financially viable.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/sns-la-pn-what-to-know-for-wednesdays-supreme-court-healthcare-deliberations-20120327,0,1056340.story
I voted 1-8 against. This shouldn’t even be a close vote but I imagine there will be at least 1 random idiot that will try to uphold it.
Things change fast sometimes, for one thing. Public opinion especially, and particularly if we’re back in the world of pre-existing conditions etc.
I do hope you’re aware of all the polls showing a solid majority of “the public” opining either that the law is good as it is or doesn’t go far enough - and what else could that be but single payer? Your claim as to the attitude of this bloc whose views you claim to know is false on two counts - actual results of polls that show otherwise, and your implicit claim that “the public” has one mind. The world is far more complicated than what Fox and Family tell you.
I’ll go with 6-3 to uphold, based on the comments today that the more reality-based of the partisan-activist wing of the Court (Kennedy and Roberts) doesn’t want to go into what to declare unconstitutional (and on what basis) but shies away from killing the whole thing. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will always vote at their party’s call; the rest either recognize that precedent and requires upholding the bill or that they don’t want to get into the consequences. Does anyone really expect them to overturn Lochner, or Social Security or Medicare? They’d have to, if following a principle higher than screwing the Democrats.
Anyone here think they will go for the severable option?
First of all, you shouldn’t make assumptions about my viewing habits. As a matter of fact, I don’t typically watch television news of any kind.
Secondly, if you have polling data, instead of alluding to it perhaps you ought to link to it. I’m sure others would appreciate that courtesy as much as I would.
What kind of precedent does that set? “We hereby send a clear message to Congress and the White House: you can get away with other unconstitutional stuff, so long as you always bundle it with a bunch of other stuff, because we sure won’t want to go into that.”
Hardly. There is nothing in the bill that is fundamentally different from the facts in a variety of other cases the Court has previously held to be constitutional. The constant yammering that it isn’t, this time, it being the product of a socialist Kenyan Muslim administration who wants death panels to kill your grandma and such, is just that - no more than yammering, and often simply lies.
Mr. Moto, if you want to be thought by others to be as well-informed about the subject as whatever your chosen “news” purveyors (Fox or otherwise, or are you like Sarah Palin and read “all of them”?) want you to feel, you really need to try just a little bit. We’ve been over the poll issue in great depth on numerous occasions in GD and GQ, among others. Are you familiar with the Search function? Something to get you started, and perhaps away from your uninformed flat assertions about what this monolith you call “the public” wants.
Your turn: Perhaps you might tell us where your absolute certainty about the subject comes from? :dubious:
I’m leaning towards 5-4 against, but hoping for 6-3 for. Roberts will almost certainly vote with the majority on an issue this important. So we have Scalia, Alito, and Thomas definitely against. Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer for, and everything riding on Kennedy.
http://electoral-vote.com/ Has a very good opinion piece about this. I recommend everybody go read it.
My gut tells me that they’ll find the mandate unconstitutional, but that it is severable, and won’t strike down the whole law.
The idea about requiring everyone to pay extra tax but then give a credit if you have health insurance is not a bad idea.
I said 6-3, but that’s picking a low part of the range. 8-1 would not be that strange.
The constitutional arguments against are pretty much an attempt to argue from silence. The policy arguments against belong in a legislature, not a court.
The anti-“death panel” town hall protestors were not the T.E.A. Party. The town hall protestors were trying to save single-payer for retirees, the T.E.A. Party (originally) were trying to prevent bailouts for homeowners.
The Dems lost to people who wanted their neighbors to lose their homes, and maybe a few who wanted to keep socialized medicine for themselves.
Furthermore, the loss was largely for lack of actually finding new blood to campaign as “the change we are waiting for.” The Democrats kept running the moderate-to-conservative old guard, and offered no real choice and less progress in much of the country. Without Obama’s coattails they had nothing. Once you get a sufficient mass of Occupy kids over 25, expect a new party to pop up and do to the Democrats what NDP did to the Grits in Canada.
Well, it looks like the plurality of those polled were wrong, including me.
Me too. I was amazed, especially that Roberts supported it and Kennedy was opposed.
Woot I voted right! I thought I was being unrealistically optimistic.
Now I regret not voting, as I would have been exactly right.
Well I was wrong in the poll, but I was right in the sense of how the vote would go purely on the basis of the commerce clause. I didn’t anticipate them finding some other rationale with which to pass it.