But what will the Supreme Court say?

[Syrinx]

It was a historic day, as the President signed health-care reform into law. And I'm pleased, overall, with the results. I'm very happy that health-insurance rescissions and "pre-existing conditions" will become things of the past. Elated in fact.

I'm not so happy about the government mandating that private citizens buy a product or service (I'm not sure which category insurance would be classified as) from a private, for-profit corporation.

To be clear, I hope the legislation stands. There is more good to be gained from it, than evil to be endured, and hopefully the evil parts can be eliminated by an administration and congressional majority with newly-gained traction.

My mind is twisted up in a knot as I contemplate how the courts will rule on the lawsuits being filed by state AG's.

Regarding the falsely-labeled "conservative" majority on the Supreme Court, I'm sure that John Roberts, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and maybe Anthony Kennedy, are in a state of apoplexy at the very thought of poor Americans being more able to obtain needed medical coverage. "It's just un-American" for such a thing to happen, I'm sure they are thinking.

At the same time, I'm sure the undies of those same justices are bulging at the seams at the idea that billions upon billions of hard-earned dollars will be ripped out of the pockets of ordinary Americans and delivered unto the cottony-soft palms of the "private sector," represented by the pampered, overfed executives that are the very embodiment of the "America" that they all love so much.

I hope the legislation stands, until it can be improved. But I think the most interesting thing to watch going forward may be which way the largely right-wing judiciary rules on the matter. Will they rule in favor of their mantra of "states' rights," or will they cave to their bizarre and perverted infatuation with corporate power? I think that's the most interesting question.

[Loudmxr]

1. It's hard to say because the lower courts in those districts are conservative.

Now conservatives tend to go with the power of government and corporations against the little guy. That's why I get a yuck out of the RW demanding conservative justices. They just want to increase power over the citizens.

So HCR has government power and a benefit for insurance companies. But its passed by a Democrat. :crazy:

[Skittles]

2. it's a real quandary for them, for sure

[BalancedGoat]

3. I'm sure they won't rule the bill unconstitutional.

I don't think that those arguing against this bill's constitutionality have a leg to stand on.

I find the case Gonzales v. Raich to be rather relevant to this question.

Full Opinion

Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 127-128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer's contention that Congress' admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee's own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself "commercial," i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity. The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. In assessing the scope of Congress' Commerce Clause authority, the Court need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a "rational basis" exists for so concluding.

I don't think that anyone can argue that Congress has a "rational basis" for concluding that people choosing not to purchase health insurance would have a substantial effect on insurance premiums, and therefore, interstate commerce.

[droidamus2]

4. how about this

If they do find it unconstitutional the Democrats come back with 'well, if we can't force people to buy insurance the next best thing is to offer a low cost 'public option' style insurance to entice them to buy insurance. Even better why don't we just allow them to buy into medicare'. If the Democrats want to keep the bill as is start talking along those lines and you might get the conservative justices to think twice.

[depakid]

5. After Citizens United v. FEC, 5 members will say pretty much anything

Bush v. Gore dispensed with ethics, federalism and comity- the Obama administration dispensed with institutional accountability both public and private despite egregious abuses that would shock any reasonable person- so really, who can say?

Nothing should surprise us.

[DCBob]

6. Ezra Klein has a good article on this issue

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/is_there_a_legal_case_against.html?hpid=topnews

From everything I have read, it sounds like SCOTUS, if it even makes it there, will let it stand.

[KharmaTrain]

7. They Had This Bill Fine Toothed By Constitutional Lawyers

When crafting something this big you expect all types of legal challenges and I'm certain that the House & Senate staffs...including many Constitutional lawyers had gone through all the aspects and legal questions on the leglislation. On the surface I don't see how their case could advance on many of the aspects of the bill, including the "mandate", but that doesn't mean the rushpublicans aren't gonna try for the PR and fundraising value.

[pipoman]

8. I believe we are moving toward a new era

of states asserting states rights on a variety of issues. Already this century we have seen more challenges, both in court and acts of defiance, specifically challenging the bastardized commerce clause, than we had seen in the last 50 years of the 20th century. Medical MJ and gun rights are 2 issues which have seen historic headway against federal legislation in the last few years. We shall see on HCR.

[Toots]

9. Every time you pay taxes a good portion of that payment goes into the hands of Private Corporations.

Whether it is to build your roads or to feed our troops, Private companies get our tax dollars to do so..This is no big deal really when you consider what all is accomplished.