Comments on: Is Obamacare going back to court?

By: John Mc

John Mc — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 00:15:43 +0000

The logic of that ruling is perverse to say the least. As Clarence Thomas has said, if the rulings are wrong they should be fixed up and the Supreme Court should not shy away from doing what’s required.

By: Jarrah

Jarrah — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 23:56:45 +0000

The commerce clause is the USC’s trump card. It’s been at the root of many of their worst decisions.

By: .

Thu, 06 Dec 2012 22:59:22 +0000

I don’t know if it is common law which is the problem. FDR stacked the court to achieve a desired outcome.

This is the worst USSC case ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial.

By: Luke

Luke — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 22:55:48 +0000

“The Supreme Court has rarely considered the Uniformity Clause’s reach, but it cannot be ignored.”

Have you NEVER read a major decision from the judiciary for the last 6 decades Sinclair?! They ignore whatever they find convenient to ignore! It’s the beauty of common law, you just put a new “emphasis” on different aspects of it.

By: sdog

sdog — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:29:57 +0000

True progressives (as opposed to “liberal” Democratic Party shills, aka American Steves) are no happier with this Obamacare monstrosity than Tea Partiers are.

By: sdog

sdog — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:44:53 +0000

I’ve given up. I’m just going to sit back and watch it burn.

By: Robin

Robin — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 11:42:31 +0000

Undoubtedly but not before the penalty phase begins on January 1 instead of what were supposed to seem like “free goodies”. Those were frontloaded before the election so the grateful could vote their thanks at being relieved of the monthly expense of birth control. Or staying on their parents plan until 26.

That latter may come in handy as hours get cut. I don’t know how much play it has gotten in Australia but the provide insurance or pay a fine kicks in at 30 hours, not the 40 that heralds full-time employment in the US. So lots of businesses that pay by the hour are cutting employees back to 28 hours according to the news.

Just what is needed in a recessionary economy, huh? So much of the fiscal cliff talk is really trying to place blame for the inevitable effects of what too much regulation, uncertainty over what will be added and what rules will still be changed, and taxes popping up everywhere.

It could be part of an Economic course on what will destroy the private sector that’s not a Political Crony.