| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Obama healthcare reform law 'in grave, grave trouble' |
| 2012-03-27 |
| A top legal analyst predicted Tuesday that the Obama administration's healthcare reform legislation seemed likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court. Jeffrey Toobin, a lawyer and legal analyst, who writes about legal topics for The New Yorker said the law looked to be in "trouble." He called it a "trainwreck for the Obama administration." "This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong," Toobin said Tuesday on CNN. "I think this law is in grave, grave trouble." Toobin's observation came on the second day of oral arguments at the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Earlier that day, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who could be the deciding vote on whether to uphold the law, told Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that there appeared to be a "very heavy burden of justification" on aspects of the law, according to The Wall Street Journal. Toobin described Kennedy as "enormously skeptical" during the arguments Tuesday. |
| Posted by:Beavis |
| #12 As I have ranted several times on this blog. I have been an RN for 30 years now. And one thing I know, is that for people who have lost their jobs and don't have insurance- rationalized health care is better than no health care at all. Yeah the Brits have seemed to have fucked up their health care system. But our current system is broke and needs to get fixed. However being told that I MUST buy insurance seems unconstitutional. |
| Posted by: texhooey 2012-03-28 00:12 |
| #11 D *** NG IT, doesn't the SCOTUS realize its for OWG-NWO + the Regional, TransRegional, + OWG Global Federal Union that no American = Amerikan of the OWG Mighty USSA = OWG Weak USRoA SSR has yet voted for, nor been asked to??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-03-28 00:02 |
| #10 Perhaps all the Flukes out there will have to buy their own now.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2012-03-27 22:25 |
| #9 Does this mean gummit funded gold dental caps |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-03-27 22:17 |
| #8 The tone in various left leaning newspapers today sounded concerned; couldn't even put a racist/ teabag spin on the goings on. but i still don't know, i think Kennedy is the key. it would be real nice if they would put a youtube of the 2010 State of the Union up where Bambi is dissing the Supremes. just before handing down the decision..... Re: Matt's commet about abiding by the decision: wouldn't the Court issue an immedieate injuction of an EO were released, ignoring the decision? |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2012-03-27 22:02 |
| #7 Since when does the SCOTUS hear two opposite legal arguments for the same law? Would you not knock that off the table to start with? Just because Social Security was bamboozled to the court does not mean that the precedent was correct and even in this case, no precedent supports this law. It initially blows a hole through the Constitution by the "Necessary and proper" clause which means nothing here, and the "Interstate Commerce" clause (or non-commerce if it were). Both clauses would be destroyed by the very precedent set by verifying this very law alone. This means that even if it were allowed to become operative before even a legal claim was filed for it, would that not even violate it's overstep of the Law in the first place? Chicken and egg shit. I do not know. This is all very dangerous stuff. Approve this, the republic is over - over night. = No limits federal mandate. |
| Posted by: newc 2012-03-27 22:01 |
| #6 the fact that it is even questionable as unconstitutional is a joke. All the MFM treat the liberal judges voting for it as "jurisprudence". Conservative or fence-sitters questioning it? Partisanship as journalism |
| Posted by: Frank G 2012-03-27 21:08 |
| #5 Justice Kennedy's comments and what took place today may explain the lack of the administration "celebration" with regard to the recent two year anniversary. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-03-27 20:48 |
| #4 Something to ponder is whether Champ will abide by the decision if it strikes down the law. Last year he was talking about not being able to wait for Congress because what he wanted to do was just too urgent. You would think he would apply the same "logic" to the Supreme Court. |
| Posted by: Matt 2012-03-27 20:43 |
| #3 The law SHOULD be in grave Constitutional trouble, but I have had a lot of concern about the fundamental 'literacy' of the Court for years. Regardless, I believe the law was never intended to actually work, or even pass court approval - it was made in order to shift the pivot point to where true National Health Care was the probable result of the failure of ACA. It is clear the system we had was doomed; I am sadly confident this is doomed, and even more sure that National Health Care will be worse, but nobody wants to address the core issues. IMO we face rationing - either by price or by edict, unless we increase supply of medical practitioners & services, because demand is only going up. The other component needed is reduction of costs by tort reform and documentation efficiencies; lawyers block the former, and very rational fears of both hacking and abuse hamper the latter. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-03-27 19:23 |
| #2 Even the name Affordable Health Care is a lie. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2012-03-27 19:01 |
| #1 We can only hope. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2012-03-27 17:16 |