ObamaCare Petition Reaches the Supreme Court

The Thomas More Law Center has filed a petition asking the U.S Supreme Court to strike down the 6th Circuit's June 29th ruling that upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. That was the ruling where Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a conservative George W. Bush appointee, voted in favor of the health care law while penning a lengthy ode to judicial restraint. Don't expect the Supreme Court to bite just yet, however, since we're still waiting on ObamaCare rulings from the 4th and 11th Circuits. This is just the first of several inevitable petitions. But it does mean the Supreme Court is one step closer to weighing on the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

Comments

[Binky]

Don't expect the Supreme Court to bite just yet

Not just yet. However, I do expect it eventually to bite big time.

[fyngyrz]

I don't.

Personally, I think it is society's obvious responsibility to see to it that the citizens are educated, healthy and have safety nets for those who slip, fall or reside at the very bottom of the economic scale.

These things are all of a nature that they are best supported in a collective manner; and I think that one of the costs of government supplying the things the rest of us actually need it to do -- border defense, transport and communications infrastructure, certain really large projects -- should be our contributing to these basic foundational elements: education, healthcare, and safety net.

Mind you, my idea of a proper safety net is something not unlike a cell with heating and cooling, not locked from the outside, with a daily serving of gruel that is tailored to (a) supply the nutrients one needs and (b) taste neutral or even bad.

I think most of the world has taken the outlook that education, healthcare and a bottom level safety net constitute society's obvious obligations in the last 50 years, and we're more than a little behind the curve.

I hope the supreme court sees it that way.

In almost all ways, I swing towards individual rights and responsibilities, but not in this area. Health transcends choice; education (pretty much all levels of it) must be supplied before we know an individual's real worth; And the safety net makes all of us safer, not just the unfortunate/lazy.

So for these three issues, I think it's nothing less than pure selfishness and short-sighted stupidity to say "I owe my fellow citizens nothing."

We do owe our fellow citizens something. And we should provide it, if for no other reason that desperate, uneducated and/or un-housed and/or seriously unhealthy people present a very real danger to the rest of us.

[califronian]

What does this have to do with obamacare? if you are worried about poor people not affording something write them a check.

[fyngyrz]

It has to do with Obamacare (which I'd prefer were called congresscare, since this is hardly what Obama asked for) in that this is a very poorly crafted step in the right direction in the sense that it actually takes healthcare into account for a lot of people who otherwise would not have access.

This is a good thing, IMHO. It is not, by any means, even close to the optimal thing, which would take the insurance companies out of the equation entirely and put equal access to medical care on the table for all, just as equal access to the roads, another very expensive proposition, is provided.

I'd rather see something poor implemented that we can improve, than nothing at all, which is where we were before the health care bill passed. Got a pre-existing condition? No insurance for you. Not earning enough? No care for you. And don't EVEN attempt to go with "emergency room", because all they have to do is stabilize you. You're not going to get serious care, you're going to get stabilized, and a note that says "see a doctor", and a prescription you can take to the pharmacy, and a WHOPPING bill for the ER time. In other words, there is no adequate care for people, by which I mean care that will ameliorate the medical problems they have.

In the other replies here, you'll note that no one actually provided a counterpoint, perhaps with the vague exception of the "slavery" comment, which simply references the juvenile economic misconception that taxes == slavery; the fact is, these same people would be entirely lost without roads, ports, safe and reliable utilities -- consequently they have no valid argument. I further suspect that without a strong military, they'd be worse than lost, by now they'd be speaking German or Japanese. What they're really squealing about is that some taxes would go for services they don't wish to support.

An ideal government would provide the minimum of services. Arguments that no government is needed are not reasonable - while some individuals might thrive in such an environment, most would not; it simply isn't worth trying.

What a minimum of services *is* can be the subject of interesting and long debates; but if you have even the slightest ability to think rationally, you'll realize that without government, you would have only those "rights" you could enforce (probably the right to die on the sharp end of someone else's spear, mainly) and your quality of life would be a lot worse than the one you're enjoying now.

I maintain -- and actually, no one here has explained why this is a bad idea -- that education and healthcare are two of the base services a government should provide. You have a counter argument, I'll listen. As for the clot of snotty remarks here, I just laugh when I read them. Most of you aren't half as smart as you think you are.

[Vintage Clothing Las Vegas]

Or you could help them improve their lives so they don't need handouts. Ya know, so they don't get all lazy and stuff.

[House of Gryphon]

Or you could help them improve their lives so they don't need handouts. Ya know, so they don't get all lazy and stuff.

[Mensan]

A wise man once said, "Fuck off, slaver!"

[Anonymous Coward]

And we should provide it, if for no other reason that desperate, uneducated and/or un-housed and/or seriously unhealthy people present a very real danger to the rest of us.

Mmmm. Needs more condescending about unfairness to women and minorities, but man is that some tasty statism!

[Whoopie Cushionberg]

George Bush wants to steal your uterus!!

[JoJo Zeke]

Personally, I think

Unsupported statement. Please provide links.

[la-la-la-can't-hear-you]

behave yourself.

[Old Mexican]

Re: fyngyrz,

Personally, I think it is society's obvious responsibility to see to it that the citizens are educated, healthy and have safety nets for those who slip, fall or reside at the very bottom of the economic scale.

Society cannot have a responsibility, fyngyrz. Only individuals have responsibilities, as it is only individuals who step on this Earth. "Society" is just the concept we use to refer to the myriads of people that closely interact with each other without having to say "the myriads of people that closely interact with each other." We instead say "society."

And it is not the burden of all to see that some are "educated" or "saved" or "healthy." It would be the burden of those that took it upon them to provide those things to others, like parents to their children, or husbands to wives (and viceversa.)

These things are all of a nature that they are best supported in a collective manner[...]

There's no reason to think that. Education is a personal choice; no amount of convincing will educate a person who does not want to learn. A safety net entices trapeze flyers to take more and unnecessary risks; same happens with people. And health is a condition, not a right.

We do owe our fellow citizens something.

What's with this "we" business, Kimosabe? "We" don't owe the rest anything. If YOU owe something to someone, pay your debts and leave the rest alone.

[heller]

*baaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrffffffffff*

[John Thacker]

In other Ken Cuccinelli-related news, it turns out he's actually a very nice guy when it comes to the Innocence Project and fighting to get an innocent black man accused of rape freed and declared innocent. Even gave the man, Thomas Haynesworth, a job on his staff after being freed, while waiting for the writ of innocence.

[Nancy Grace]

after being freed, while waiting for the writ of innocence.

The devil is dancing tonight!

[rather]

Unlike the debt debate, time is in O's side, and the HC mandate will be mostly instated by the time SCOTUS hears it

[Ole Pappy Robert F. Cornbrew]

Yeah, I think this country went to the dogs when we elected that Darkie!

They rape people, you know...HARD!

[STEVE SMITH]

STEVE SMITH RAPE HEALTH CARE MANDATE BEFORE 2014. STEVE SMITH ALSO RAPE OLE PAPPY IN HIS SWEET, BROWN ASSHOLE TIL OLE PAPPY TELL STEVE SMITH TO STOP. STEVE SMITH WON'T UNTIL STEVE SMITH IS THROUGH.

[JoJo Zeke]

Every time some hapless online crotch louse of Obambi's ever-vigilant Team Tongue Bath is reduced to sulkily sniveling "RAAAAAAAAAAAACISSSSSSSSSTS" in response to rational, reasoned criticism: I know that, deep down, they're hurting inside...

... and: it gives me a happy.

[JoJo Zeke]

... and, just because I know it'll make all the members of the boy-king's online apologia choir break out in great, heaving sobs of dismay:

Ron Paul Tied with Obama, 50/50.

"Hope! CHANGE!"

[la-la-la-can't-hear-you]

be nice.

[R C Dean]

The mandate doesn't go into effect until 2014.

Absent truly extraordinary delays at the appellate level in the case they are likely to take (from the 4th Circuit), it will be on their docket next year.

Meaning the decision will drop in late June, early July.

Its possible, of course, that all the Circuits will agree with 6th, that ObamaCare is perfectly Constitutional, in which case SCOTUS could dodge the bullet and decline to take any appeal. Even if the Circuits agree, though, I expect them to grant cert on one of the cases.

[califronian]

this is actually the one slim hope i have for any marginal improvement to our government situation.

please please please strike down obamacare. it is a monstrosity

[Res Publica Americana]

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

[.]

"T.J., ju?t be glad you didn't ?ign that thing. It'll end up biting them in the a?s." -- Unknown, Sept. 18, 1787.

[cynical]

SCOTUS's power on Constitutional questions is limited by standing. Certainly, of the three branches, they're the least shitty about the constitution. On the other hand, because the other branches are already shitty, they do end up being the deciding factor on a lot of contra-constitutional stuff, which maybe makes them look worse than they are.

[wylie]

But it does mean the Supreme Court The American Public is one step closer to weighing on the constitutionality of the individual mandate being irrevocably screwed.

ftfy.

[bill]

intrade has it at 50% to to be declared unconstitutional by the end of 2013 and 45% by the end of 2012.

[rst]

If "public use" is any indication, I wouldn't get your hopes up. SCOTUS has already been dropping trou on the Commerce Clause for years. And why would Scalia rule any differently here than he did in Raich?

I'm not feeling it.

[mad libertarian guy]

If/when Obamacare goes to SCOTUS, you can just about bet your ass that it will be upheld.

There would have to be too much legal acrobatics to overcome because of past rulings that they will NOT want to overturn (Gonzalez v Raich for starters).

[scarpe Nike Store]

is good

[Nike Dunk High]

thanks