You might be surprised. Those who take a specific legal position tend to believe that the Supreme Court will "get it right" as soon as the justices change. That's been an active political strategy relating to at least one case for decades.
Too Bad
- Thread starter PearlWatson
- Start date
You might be surprised. Those who take a specific legal position tend to believe that the Supreme Court will "get it right" as soon as the justices change. That's been an active political strategy relating to at least one case for decades.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Hopefully they get it right the first time on this one.
Look, Kicky, all Im saying is that I think once it reaches the supreme court, it will be deemed unconstitutional. Yes, there is a diversity of opinion from the courts right now, but in the end the SC will vote unconstitutional.
C l u t c H 385
Banned
I'd be more concerned about being required to buy a product for others who drive up the cost of the product cuz they cant stop eating or smoking and refuse to exercise.
Upon what do you base your opinion?
Honest question: How many pieces of Congressional legislation can you think of in the last 30 years that were invalidated by the Supreme Court as exceeding the limits of the Commerce clause?
C l u t c H 385
Banned
I gave your mom a rash-inal basis.
No idea. I am not a lawyer. That said, the articles Ive read based the decision on the individual mandate part.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Yeah, because according to liberals it is impossible to exceed the limits of the commerce clause.
That's dodging the question (which did not mention liberals at all).
Keeping the individual mandate is one of the financial underpinnings of this bill. If you throw that out, you need to throw it all out and start over, with the primary alternatives seeming to be either the way things were or single-payer (which is not the same as single-insurer).
C l u t c H 385
Banned
Good.
It's certainly possible to exceed the limits. But the Supreme Court cases that have done so recently have had connections to interstate commerce that are significantly more tenuous.
For instance it's harder to conceive of a substantial relation to interstate commerce for the Violence Against Women Act or the Gun-Free School Zones Act than it is for the regulation of health insurance.
But you don't have to get too far afield from VAWA before very recent Supreme Court precedent starts shading towards permissability under . For instance, criminalizing marijuana federally is permissable under the commerce clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalez_v._Raich
The interesting part there is that's a view held even by Scalia.
I don't think it's exactly difficult to conceive that regulation of health insurance is more related to interstate commerce than marijuana.
But obviously you're more interested in simply saying "liberal" and thus thinking you've won something.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Do any of those cases involve requiring individuals to buy a product? or are they all about restricting the ability to buy and sell?