So the rethugs want the Supreme Court to overturn the health care as UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[bigdarryl]

Do these idiots know there opening up a can of worms on this because if this is overturned what about the Government making it mandatory to collect money from your paycheck on Social Security and what about Car Insurance being mandatory.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Apples and Oranges

We don't *need* a car, and even if we have one, we can file NO. As for federal taxes, that can o' worms isn't in the Constitution any more than this health insurance giveaway.

[bigdarryl]

4. i didn't say anything about TAXES I'm talking about the mandates that the Government

takes money out of your paycheck for Social Security until you are 65. Which for me is 248.00 every two weeks

[Oregone]

9. Hows that compare to forcing people to enter a private marketplace and engage in commerce?

Because that is whats happening here.

[Mz Pip]

2. What would this look like?

what would the basis for a lawsuit be? Doesn't a plaintiff have to show some kind of harm or damage caused by the ruling? Just because you don't like the outcome of a law, it isn't grounds enough to sue.

[Oregone]

8. Damages are not relevant to constitutional matters

[depakid]

11. Both affected individuals and states will have standing

though for a political case, it becomes a bit tricky with respect to where the opponents file (they want a "friendly forum") who should file the test (they want "juicy facts" and a "sympathetic" plaintiff). This assumes of course a degree of coordination, which with teabaggers running around- they may not have.

There are three main avenues for a challenge:

They will claim a commerce clause violation- though most legal scholars agree that this will fail under the current line of cases, because the cost spreading and internalizion of uninsured's costs substantially affects interstate commerce. Look at it like a fee or tax for garbage or pollution;

They may claim a 1st Amendment violation based on the Free Exercize clause- which raises the question of how broad a public health mandate of any sort may be (cf. vaccine mandates), which groups are bona fide and whether there's discrimination among various groups;

And they may claim a 5th Amendment "taking," an argument that the far right has had some success with since the mid 1980's in various zoning cases. The issue here though is not the taking itself- but whether there's just compensation.

These are all loser arguments- but the important thing to note is that the Court has other agendas- and this gang of five has proven time and time again that they both lack any sense of ethics and are also will to go to any length of sophistry to reach the result that they want in any given case.

[Mz Pip]

13. thank you

for the thoughtful answer.

It sounds like it will come down to the judicial activism of the Republican SCOTUS members.

[DFLforever]

3. Don't forget Medicare Part D mandate.

for prescription drug insurance.

I don't. I pay for it every month though I don't use any prescription drugs.

Are Republican passed insurance mandates unconstitutional as well?

[Bitwit1234]

5. I think if that's unconstitutional than

we go with the republican party filibustering every bill as being unconstitutional. and every thing they have did for the eight years of bush stolen reign be put under a microscope. Starting with the way he got the office. We could tie up any republican action for 100 years.

[Oregone]

6. Health care isnt going to be a law. A mandate to force you to engage in private market commerce is

[onenote]

7. so do a couple of DUers

of course, that's par for the course around here these days isn't it...

[jody]

10. It will be nice to get a SCOTUS decision on record for such methods. n/t

[depakid]

12. Actually- you probably wouldn't want to throw the dice with this bunch