Supreme Court / Health Care

[highnote]

Here's a link to an interesting story about how a farmer in 1942 took his lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. The farmer believed he had the right to grow as much wheat as he wanted on his farm even though the gov said there were limits on how much he could grow.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Court-Case-Haunting-bizwk-1883814425.html?x=0

The court's unanimous 1942 ruling against Filburn broadened Congress' right to regulate interstate commerce and opened the way for sweeping environmental, consumer protection, and workplace safety laws. The case still reverberates: The Supreme Court's interpretation of Wickard v. Filburn could determine whether challenges to President Barack Obama's health-care law are successful.

[boxcar]

Here's a link to an interesting story about how a farmer in 1942 took his lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. The farmer believed he had the right to grow as much wheat as he wanted on his farm even though the gov said there were limits on how much he could grow.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Court-Case-Haunting-bizwk-1883814425.html?x=0

Apart, from wading into the merits or demerits of that decision, I would say off the top of my head that the fundamental difference is that the farmer was engaging in commerce, whereas with the health care deal, the government would be forcing people to engage. In other words, the "commerce clause" can apply to people engaging in commerce; but can it be used to force people to engage in it against our will? Interestingly, the government itself backed away from the purchase mandates of ObamaCare by claiming that the penalties are taxes and not really [punitive] penalties. So...if Obama himself and the administration's lawyers have begged off the "forced purchasing" shtick and instead have pursued a course of a taxation strategy, they must see a weakness or two in the commerce clause approach.

Having said all this, I think it will still be a huge uphill battle to get the SC to overturn ObamaCare. Way too much political capital is at stake here. (Recall Biden's remarks after it was passed?) I see about a 30% chance of getting this reversed. The court will likely let it stand or render some watered-down decision, declaring parts of the bill as being unlawful.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Here's a link to an interesting story about how a farmer in 1942 took his lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. The farmer believed he had the right to grow as much wheat as he wanted on his farm even though the gov said there were limits on how much he could grow.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Court-Case-Haunting-bizwk-1883814425.html?x=0

That case is getting a ton of play lately. I think it was bad case law and still is. Let's hope the court has "evolved" since then

[Spiderman]

I do not believe that mandatory health insurance payment will succeed. A Public Option should be part of Health Care Reform (HRC).

During the course of the new congress, there will be several attempts to dismantle HCR. A vote will be taken, tomorrow, to repeal it in entirety. That will not succeed.

Health care costs must be reduced by intensive review of the system. Big Pharma, insurance companies, hospital pricing policies, medical equipment manufacturers are reaping huge profits at taxpayer expense.

[Tom]

It will not pass the senate and Obama will never sign it.

Listen up, new repubs....stop wasting time and money and get your miserable arse to work on attainable stuff.

You have not conveined yet and I already am puking at the very sight of you all!!!!

First order of business - put another worthless POS liar in as SOH.
A vote for him is a shame on you all.

[prospector]

I do not believe that mandatory health insurance payment will succeed. A Public Option should be part of Health Care Reform (HRC).

During the course of the new congress, there will be several attempts to dismantle HCR. A vote will be taken, tomorrow, to repeal it in entirety. That will not succeed.

Health care costs must be reduced by intensive review of the system. Big Pharma, insurance companies, hospital pricing policies, medical equipment manufacturers are reaping huge profits at taxpayer expense.
if they were smart, and they're not, they'd use that vote against all who vote to keep it..start ads now..everytime they vote against the will of the people..tv ad "did you see what our rep did now?" type ads..
70% of the people are against the healthcare bill...least they can do is starve it to death..

[ceejay]

This is an important precedence(And I think pretty on-point for the healthcare discussion). But, that does not mean anything because this court has already shown that it is willing to throw out precedence when it wants. Take, for example, Citizens United.

Many courts in the past have overturned precedence that it didn't like. Although it is an overstatement, one could say that civil rights might have never happened with a strict adherence to bad precedence. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857); Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

[ArlJim78]

Tom, It is not a waste of time for the new house to vote to repeal Obamacare. They have to start in this manner, and make democrats keep trying to defend it. It is absolutely vital, and they are not wasting time as it is the first thing they are going to do right out of the box. it is what everyone demanded that they do. if they didn't do it they would get creamed by the tea party types.

look it will likely not go through on the first try but they must force everyone to commit to a stance, for or against. they would be nuts to let Democrats avoid immediate accountability after the shellacking. maybe it will cause some cracks on the democratic side, maybe it will show that there is bipartisan support to repeal. Dem's are fresh off of the worst election defeat in modern memory which was primarily due to the unpopularity of Obamacare, there will never been a better time to vote to repeal it.
let's see how many of the 20 or so Democratic senators who are up for re election in 2012 take a firm stand for this unpopular crap. they must keep the heat on the democrats and try to get some momentum building for repeal. Democrats weren't bashful and used blunt force to ram all this stuff through, Republicans have to start ramming right back against it.
this is going to be a long battle, and this is not the end game, only the opening salvo. they've got other chips to play as well.

[boxcar]

if they were smart, and they're not, they'd use that vote against all who vote to keep it..start ads now..everytime they vote against the will of the people..tv ad "did you see what our rep did now?" type ads..
70% of the people are against the healthcare bill...least they can do is starve it to death..

Exactly! The Repugs own the House now. They need to take advantage of that in every way imaginable. The repeal vote on the 12th, while symbolic, is important for the reason you've stated.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Tom, It is not a waste of time for the new house to vote to repeal Obamacare. They have to start in this manner, and make democrats keep trying to defend it. It is absolutely vital, and they are not wasting time as it is the first thing they are going to do right out of the box. it is what everyone demanded that they do. if they didn't do it they would get creamed by the tea party types.

look it will likely not go through on the first try but they must force everyone to commit to a stance, for or against. they would be nuts to let Democrats avoid immediate accountability after the shellacking. maybe it will cause some cracks on the democratic side, maybe it will show that there is bipartisan support to repeal. Dem's are fresh off of the worst election defeat in modern memory which was primarily due to the unpopularity of Obamacare, there will never been a better time to vote to repeal it.
let's see how many of the 20 or so Democratic senators who are up for re election in 2012 take a firm stand for this unpopular crap. they must keep the heat on the democrats and try to get some momentum building for repeal. Democrats weren't bashful and used blunt force to ram all this stuff through, Republicans have to start ramming right back against it.
this is going to be a long battle, and this is not the end game, only the opening salvo. they've got other chips to play as well.

Good post. You're absolutely right. The Dems during this last election HID from This health care debacle. They didn't want to discuss it. Bring it up. Defend it. Nothing. If the Republicans don't drag this monstrosity out into the light of day for all to see, who will? As you've essentially implied, the Repugs need to bludgeon the Dems with the very bill they rammed down our throats but now want to sweep under the rug.

Boxcar

[Tom]

I would rather they spend their time doing constructive things.
Like cutting spending, fixing the border, addressing their blather about things we could do right away to fix HC, creating an atmosphere conducive to job growth....you know, things that have been neglected for 20 years.