A Win for Obama's Health Care Law

Comments

1
I know is feels nice to get these wins, but this is really not how the federal judiciary is supposed to work.
3
Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. With the judiciary's impartiality obviously compromised, it'll be more difficult for those from both sides of the spectrum to respect decisions they disagree with. Without that faith in an even-handed 'final say', the next recourse following the exhaustion of justice's options is violence on the part of the loser.
4
Don't know how you'd call this a "win". Pretty frivolous suit, with little merit.
5
Not too long ago I wouldn't have worried, but after Citizens United it's pretty clear the SC has lost its mandate and integrity. Stare decisis - who gives a shit? Congress's will? Fuck it, we don't like it so we'll overturn it. Justice Stevens's dissent in Citizens sums up the problem much better than I ever could and is worth reading.

FWIW, the last big case for the Interstate Commerce Clause was Gonzales v. Raich (2005) where the Court did find in favor of the feds. We'll see. After the clusterfuck that was Bush v. Gore, the SC has a long way to go before it earns any respect and can be perceived as only another political tool.
6
*Anything besides another political tool
7
Sir Vic is correct; this isn't really anything to get excited about.
8
God helps those who help themselves to government-regulated health insurance.
9
Is this a best-of-seven series?
10
No, it's only one game, but that will be the Florida lawsuit.
11
The Supremes should take this on with the same expediency as Bush v. Gore.
12
Agreed, Raindrop. And they've been asked to do just that. Probably not gonna happen, though. Must be nice to have a job like that.
13
These little exhibitions are cute and all, but they're all just warm-ups for the only actual game in town, the Supreme Court.

I'm a little surprised the SC hasn't addressed the health care law yet, but also glad. The longer they wait, the more people will come to like the new law when they realize it's nothing like the death panels and boogeymen the teabaggers tried to scare into everyone.
14
Do you think SCOTUS wants to be responsible for a health care disaster that will take place over the next decade? History already shows them as responsible for the Bush/Cheney debacle.
15
Let's see, they've tried to shoot this thing down with 3 of the Bill of Rights so far...mm...how about "no quartering of troops"...yes, that's it...Obamacare will "quarter troops" in our homes...ok, get the paralegals in here...we got a new case!
16
A majority of the Supreme Court is bought. That's been clear since Bush v. Gore, and blatantly obvious since Citizens Untied, but the good thing about that means they'll uphold Obamacare, since regardless of what the Republicans are saying about government overreach, Obamacare (but only with the personal mandate) is a giant windfall for the insurance industry. The court will decide in favor of big business, it’s what they’re there to do.
17
OuterCow @ 16,

For as cynical as I am, even I was depressed to read this blatant disregard for ethics. I mean, at least pay lip service.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20…

"Reports that two Supreme Court Justices have attended seminars sponsored by the energy giant and conservative bankroller Koch Industries has sparked a mild debate over judicial ethics."
18
I actually agreed with most of the Citizens United decision, but if it were up to me, I would have given a much more well-thought-out opinion. This seems to be typical of the Roberts Court - drag your feet, don't rule unless you have to, and when you do, give the bare minimum of guidance to the trial courts so you ensure years and years of ongoing litigation. It's totally fucked, and I don't expect any better from a ruling on Obamacare.
19
If God will protect you, then I guess it's cool that I attempt to run you down in my car.

How are people ACTUALLY that dumb?
20
SCOTUS is probably waiting to see if Congress modifies the law in the next session or two. No sense ruling on a law that doesn't take effect until 2014 if you suspect it will be changed substantially before then.
21
@17 I'm actually glad they're starting to get so lazy that they're not even paying lip service to judicial ethics, whatever makes it harder for the rest of us to turn a blind eye to the hypocrisy is a good thing.
22
How's God doing with cancer? It only affects athiests, right?