Any SCOTUS that can grant personhood to corporations, can certainly overturn HCR

[scheming daemons]

They contradicted 100 years of "settled law" and precedent in giving corporations the First Amendment rights of individuals.


Anyone who thinks this conservative court can't or won't declare the HCR law unconstitutional if they are given the chance is kidding themselves.


Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy will have no qualms whatsoever in overturning this if it gets to them.


We're dismissing these lawsuits too quickly.


Yes... "legal experts" say that decades of settled law would prohibit the SCOTUS from overturning HCR.


Ever since Bush v Gore, we are fools if we think anything is beyond this court. Anything.

[abelenkpe]

1. O man

You're bringing me down. :(

[Cronus Protagonist]

2. Yup. once the committed that treasonous felony in 2001, they are up for anything

They know no bounds, and George's appointments sealed the deal. Welcome to fascism.

[babylonsister]

3. Please chill; the sky hasn't fallen, and I refuse to even entertain

the idea that they'll get an opportunity to do that.

So there! :P

[eleny]

5. Oh, you!

[babylonsister]

6. LOL. That's about what I'm doing. nt

[eleny]

4. I've been worried, too

[harun]

7. Having corpo-fascist's on the court virtually guarantee's they find this bill to be AWESOME!

What you been smokin?

[frazzled]

8. You're right, a crazy court could do anything

But I doubt they could overturn the whole bill. Worst that would happen is that the current form of mandate (a penalty on taxes) would have to be changed to something else. Some have suggested an "opt-out" clause for individuals that comes with a 5-year prohibition on buying insurance through the exchanges. (That's so they can't opt out and then just buy it when they get sick a year or two later).

Truly, any rational court--including a rational conservative court--would never find the mandate unconstitutional. However, we do have a fair number of nutters on this one.

[treestar]

9. First they need a case

Of someone claiming to be harmed by the bill.

It'll take so many years to get to the SCOTUS that it will have different people on it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. Will health insurance companies be harmed?

I mean, now that they're, you know, "persons" and all? :eyes:

To be serious, though, I'm not sure that there's going to be kind of groundswell of support for repealing health care reform that Republicans believe there is/will be nor am I sure that people are really going to be that willing to let their states spend the amount of time and, more importantly, money suing to take away the benefits of the new law.

[Initech]

10. I believe the Latin term for this is "SCOTUS Interruptus"

[Uncle Joe]

11. I take the opposite view, this empowers the corporations by institutionalizing a for profit system,

there is no way in hell a corporate supremacist loving Supreme Court appointed by Republicans will overturn this.

[scheming daemons]

13. How do you explain 13 REPUBLICAN AGs bringing the lawsuit?

These are conservative, "corporatist-loving" Republican Attorneys General.

[Uncle Joe]

14. Politics, they know their base hates this bill because of the mandates, but they also know either

it won't reach the Supreme Court and if it does, the SC will rule against them.

They get to have their cake and eat it too.