- 3,352
Winter and Dan, damn good stuff. Seriously good. Is Rick back from breakfast yet? He needs to weigh in on this thread.
NO Decision Today
- Thread starter Yagents
- Start date
- 1,896
Is anyone else thinking that the next challenge to the law (should this challenge fail) is by insurance carriers regarding the MLR provisions? I don't see how the government can mandate a specific level of spending or a maximum level of profit on a particular product ....
- 2,908
Yeh.. I see that and it is all valid. Problem is there are lots of valid themes running through the courts comments. One of the convoluting factors is that there is an unholy alliance between both the lib and conservative justices in regard to the fact that the court should defer to Congress whenever possible and only take care of those parts that the Congress cannot decide. And of course that is what the Constitution and Framers wanted too versus Ginzburg who just wants to lick Obama's bootheels.
I can see either the lib or conservative justices accepting your valid point above in regard to the problems in funding guaranteed issue and then shrugging and saying "okay and so if it doesnt work then the reason why they can't just repeal it is what?..........".and how the hell do we know that they might now want to try to fund it through taxes or the like?" I could see either a Scalia or a Ginsburg making that same argument. Keep in mind that even though Ginzburg will probably be in the minority on the mandate, she still gets to vote on how to handle the law if the mandate goes down so there is a multi-step dance here.
To your point though, I do agree that they might shoot down a couple things (guaranteed issue could be one) along with the mandate based on the idea that they accepted the oral arguments on those points. In other words, I can see where they might make decisions around issues argued in court but then say, "we arent reading the rest of that stuff" let congress figure it out. I don't see that as easily as their just shooting the mandate down. I am just saying if the want to take just a few things down and stay out of the brushpile I can see how they could do that by just confining their decision to the issues where the parties gave them more info at oral argument as to how they were connected.
What a mess.
Last edited:
- 3,352
Stuy boy is bringing some good stuff here boys...Good point, sue over the MLR?! That comin next? Damn I love this stuff !
- 2,908
By government,we mean whether the federal government has a constitutional or valid basis for doing it. Otherwise, as discussed, some of us live in states that have been doing this for so long it is not even close to being news. You know there are things - the mandate is one- that the feds may not have the power to do but the states do, or so it can be argued as it was in Massachusetts.
If you live in a lefty state, I would expect a whole bunch of action coming your way. Too late to worry about it in my state. All those "improvements" were implemented long ago. Of course all the improvers were hoping for obamacare to take on the burden now that they have trashed the whole system here.
I think SCOTUS is also being careful about making a precedence. They have to think through every action, and the future consequences when someone quotes this case law.
From what the Justices said (both left & right), I don't think any of them want to carve the carcass. I would think the Right would want to just overturn the whole law & let Congress pick what was really wanted/needed, and I think the Left would want to conserve all of the law that wasn't considered directly unconstitutional. My guess is that they will go all one way or all the other with the severability issue. Not that I'm an expert in law, mind you! Just my thoughts.
From what the Justices said (both left & right), I don't think any of them want to carve the carcass. I would think the Right would want to just overturn the whole law & let Congress pick what was really wanted/needed, and I think the Left would want to conserve all of the law that wasn't considered directly unconstitutional. My guess is that they will go all one way or all the other with the severability issue. Not that I'm an expert in law, mind you! Just my thoughts.
Similar threads
