General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLA Times: "Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law"
The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obamas healthcare law entirely.
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.
The courts conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story
I haven't seen it reported so extreme. Granted, this is from this morning, before today's session.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)spanone
(135,841 posts)or just another wannabe
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)on DC in support of Medicare For All.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)(what you said - a mass demonstration)
But we also need a leader. If only he would.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)They don't know. That's a major oversimplification and reduction of comments made by one or two Justices.
sadbear
(4,340 posts)It did sound a bit presumptuous, considering practically NO ONE ELSE is reporting the same.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)but I saw a couple of comments from Justices today- from Scalia of course announcing that he wants the whole thing thrown out along with the individual mandate. Loosely quoting here: "my approach is, if you've cut the heart out of a statute, the statute is gone too." He should have been a butcher.
and then Kennedy (who pro-ACA Democrats were hoping would come around to their side) said something to the effect that, when as Judge you strike a key part of a law, and it is a part on which passage of the overall law was set as a condition for many of the legislators who voted for it, then it would be actually represent Judicial Restraint to throw the whole thing out, rather than just the offending part. Throwing out only the offending part and keeping the rest would, in effect, rewrite the law from the bench and impute assent to lawmakers who in fact never voted for the law in that form and who made it clear that they did not assent to the bill becoming law without that (Constitutionally unacceptable) provision. So in the name of not being a "Judicial Activist" then, maybe Kennedy is inclined to toss the whole law out. Maybe. Maybe he's just trying that opinion on and waiting to be persuaded by the 4 Democrats not to make it a permanent part of his wardrobe. Lots of people would find tossing out entire 2,700 page laws on the basis of one unConstitutional provision included in it to be fairly "Activist" in tone. But we don't know what he'll do. And even if it's crystal clear what Scalia wants to do, it's not clear he can get anyone but what'shisname, the one who never talks, to go along with him.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I've only heard a few songs by Toto, and don't feel the need to hear any more.