Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Judge declares Obamacare unconstitutional
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
-
Originally posted by Jim6L View PostThat will be appealed.
This could go all the way up to the Supreme Court again.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
I'm really concerned about the loss of the "pre-existing conditions". I could not afford my hearing aids because of it. I know the insurance companies don't like it, but to me it's a heavy penalty people pay through no fault of theirs. I admit this was pretty much the only thing I like about ACA.Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette
Comment
-
For every one thing Obamacare got right, it got countless other things wrong.Last edited by Mountain Man; 12-15-2018, 12:39 PM.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by DesertBerean View PostI'm really concerned about the loss of the "pre-existing conditions". I could not afford my hearing aids because of it. I know the insurance companies don't like it, but to me it's a heavy penalty people pay through no fault of theirs. I admit this was pretty much the only thing I like about ACA.Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostI'm pretty sure that most, if not all, of the Republican attempts to minimize the ACA left that part intact, but Democrats demanded that everything stay. So now it's time to pay the piper.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
For those who don't want to read, as I did, through 50+ pages (I'll admit I skimmed some parts), the argument essentially is this:
When the individual mandate went up to the Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the opinion was complicated. 5 justices agreed it was not allowable under the commerce clause, 4 justices believed it did, but one of the justices who said it was not allowable under the commerce clause (Roberts) concluded it counted as a tax and was therefore constitutional under the taxing powers of congress and voted to uphold it. The important thing is to note that the majority held the commerce clause did not allow it. This opinion then argues that since the penalty for violating the individual mandate has been dropped to $0, it no longer raises revenue and cannot be regarded as a tax. With that rationale gone, the majority's holding that it is not justified by the commerce clause is restored and the individual mandate is no longer constitutional. It rejects the argument that it doesn't count as regulating anything because of the lack of penalty on the grounds that it's still the law one is supposed to or pay the penalty, even if that penalty is nothing. Finally, it regards the individual mandate as not severable from the rest of the law, and thus strikes the law down in its entirety.
Obviously, that's a simplification, and someone who wants a more in-depth explanation can read the decision itself. The argument is interesting, but feels awfully pedantic. The individual mandate was the focus of the constitutional objection to the ACA, and it was effectively obviated. This decision then concludes that, on the basis of this change, the ACA becomes unconstitutional. It certainly gives its arguments for doing so, but it feels thoroughly counterintuitive that a de-facto-if-not-de-jure repealing of the objectionable portion would actually change a law from constitutional to unconstitutional.
What I would be curious about is what precedent, if any, there is to judicial review of laws that lack any penalty for breaking them.Last edited by Terraceth; 12-15-2018, 03:02 PM.
Comment
-
A legal question Terraceth (or others) I am curious about...
When a law is tweaked via an amendment to it in this manner, such that it renders the previously constitutional law now unconstitutional, can the courts not simply declare the amendment to the law to be unconstitutional and strike down the amendment and leave the original constitutional law intact? Does US legal precedent allow / endorse this?
It seems strange to me that a 906 page law that has found to be constitutional as a whole, should suddenly become unconstitutional as a whole when an amendment crosses out one sentence of it - the unconstitutional action IMO is the crossing out of that sentence which should then be undone! That is the least activist option for the courts and it then throws the ball back to congress who can decide to either remove the law in its entirety if that is what they want to do, or rewrite large parts of it to create a new version that is constitutional.
I'm not very happy about this Republican strategy of "we don't want to take responsibility for actually repealing the law, so we'll deliberately sabotage it to be unconstitutional and then get the courts to do our dirty work of throwing out the law, thus we achieve our goal without looking responsible to the public for our actions". It's a bit pathetic."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostA legal question Terraceth (or others) I am curious about...
When a law is tweaked via an amendment to it in this manner, such that it renders the previously constitutional law now unconstitutional, can the courts not simply declare the amendment to the law to be unconstitutional and strike down the amendment and leave the original constitutional law intact? Does US legal precedent allow / endorse this?
It seems strange to me that a 906 page law that has found to be constitutional as a whole, should suddenly become unconstitutional as a whole when an amendment crosses out one sentence of it - the unconstitutional action IMO is the crossing out of that sentence which should then be undone! That is the least activist option for the courts and it then throws the ball back to congress who can decide to either remove the law in its entirety if that is what they want to do, or rewrite large parts of it to create a new version that is constitutional.
I'm not very happy about this Republican strategy of "we don't want to take responsibility for actually repealing the law, so we'll deliberately sabotage it to be unconstitutional and then get the courts to do our dirty work of throwing out the law, thus we achieve our goal without looking responsible to the public for our actions". It's a bit pathetic.
However, having surveyed some readings on this subject, the primary challenge to this opinion is on the severability doctrine, which is the question of "if a portion of a law is unconstitutional, how much of the law is to be struck down?" Generally speaking, the important question when it comes to severability is how essential the portion of the law considered unconstitutional is to the rest of it.
There's various possible criticisms to be made of the other parts of the opinion (including whether anyone had standing to begin with to bring the suit), but ultimately, if the individual mandate itself is struck down, there's no practical effect on anyone because it's been made toothless anyway. So whether to uphold it or strike it down is little more than a legal curiosity right now. Of course, whether the rest of the law is to be struck down is much more than a legal curiosity, and that's where severability comes in.
The claim the entire law must be struck down seems strained. I have no objection to the its argument that if the individual mandate were struck down in the original version of the law, that the entire law should be also (indeed all 9 members of the Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius agreed either explicitly or implicitly on this point, the difference in opinion was whether anything had to be struck down to begin with). However, the key word here is "the original version of the law." We're not in the 2010 version, but the 2017 version, even if the only change in the 2017 version was a switch from having an actual penalty to no penalty. Essentially, the argument in the opinion is that in the original form of the law the individual mandate was seen as essential, and that therefore should continue onto the 2017 form, and the whole law should go.
This has gathered criticism even from those who aren't fans of the Affordable Care Act (see here and here) and it's not hard to see why--insisting that severability be decided by a no-longer-existent version of a law seems absurd. As was noted in the second link:
Judge O'Connor is not content to claim the mandate must be invalidated, he goes on to claim that this justifies declaring the whole law invalid because Congress, in 2010, claimed the mandate was essential to the operation of the Act. Yet Congress in 2017 reached a different conclusion when it enacted legislation zeroing out the mandate penalty. The ACA today -- the ACA as amended by Congress in 2017 -- no longer relies upon an enforceable individual mandate to operate because there is none.
Despite this fact, Judge O'Connor concludes that the 2017 Congress's decisions to leave the ACA without an enforceable mandate requires invalidation of the entire law because the 2010 Congress said so. In effect, Judge O'Connor concludes that the 2010 Congress precluded subsequent Congress's from selectively amending the ACA. This would be crazy even if Congress had sought to do this in 2010 -- it's even more crazy as the 2010 Congress did no such thing.
The weakness of Judge O'Connor's severability analysis becomes even more plain when one unpacks the actions of the two Congresses. Insofar as the 2010 Congress claimed the mandate played an essential role in the operation of the ACA, it was referring to a mandate that was enforced by a penalty. That is, the 2010 Congress believed that imposing a financial penalty on the failure to obtain qualifying health insurance would reduce the number of individuals who failed to comply. As there is no such penalty anymore, it is simply nonsensical to rely upon the 2010 Congress's findings to make judgments about the law as subsequently amended in 2017. The 2010 findings concern a law that, for all practical purposes, ceases to exist. What matters is what Congress did -- and what Congress did is create a law that regulates health insurance markets and lacks an enforceable mandate to purchase insurance. This may or may not be good policy, but it is what Congress did, and there's no basis for a district court to undo it.
Consensus seems that it's extremely likely this will just be overturned on appeal.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostA legal question Terraceth (or others) I am curious about...
When a law is tweaked via an amendment to it in this manner, such that it renders the previously constitutional law now unconstitutional, can the courts not simply declare the amendment to the law to be unconstitutional and strike down the amendment and leave the original constitutional law intact? Does US legal precedent allow / endorse this?
It seems strange to me that a 906 page law that has found to be constitutional as a whole, should suddenly become unconstitutional as a whole when an amendment crosses out one sentence of it - the unconstitutional action IMO is the crossing out of that sentence which should then be undone! That is the least activist option for the courts and it then throws the ball back to congress who can decide to either remove the law in its entirety if that is what they want to do, or rewrite large parts of it to create a new version that is constitutional.
I'm not very happy about this Republican strategy of "we don't want to take responsibility for actually repealing the law, so we'll deliberately sabotage it to be unconstitutional and then get the courts to do our dirty work of throwing out the law, thus we achieve our goal without looking responsible to the public for our actions". It's a bit pathetic.
Comment
-
technically something that was ruled unconstitutional could be overturned again, but it would be very difficult and they would have to prove that some major error was made in the first overruling. And it has never happened before as far as I can tell.
many laws stand for a long time until someone challenges it and then it can be overturned or ruled unconstitutional.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Posttechnically something that was ruled unconstitutional could be overturned again, but it would be very difficult and they would have to prove that some major error was made in the first overruling. And it has never happened before as far as I can tell.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI think that is the question the courts will need to answer. I don't know, but it certainly looks weak and was brought to a right wing activist judge to decide.
Personally I don't think his decision will hold up.
But republicans will most likely pay big time for this sabotage, particularly those who ran on protecting preexisting conditions only to sign on to this suit that would do away with those protections.
They are not too bright these republicans, they just got wiped out in the mid terms mostly do to their stance on healthcare
and now they give the democrats this same club to bat them over the head with in 2020. Not only that, but if republicans get their way on this sabotage, it's only going to push democrats to go all out for universal, single payer healthcare, after we throw the bums out.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostLike the Dems who always take their cases to New York, California, or Hawaii?
I do. The 2014 court decided that the law stood together as a whole. Invalidate one part, and the whole thing goes.
No it doesn't. There are other measures already in committee to handle the pre-existing condition problem.
Mostly due to the lies the Libs told about healthcare.
It'll never happen. When someone actually makes people understand that half of their paychecks will be gutted to pay for everyone else's healthcare, and that the Libs want exactly that, the tables will finally turn in the right direction.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 03:46 PM
|
0 responses
27 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by KingsGambit
Yesterday, 04:11 PM
|
||
Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 01:52 PM
|
1 response
26 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Yesterday, 10:46 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:08 AM
|
6 responses
58 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by RumTumTugger
Yesterday, 10:30 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:44 AM
|
0 responses
21 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 07:44 AM | ||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 07:04 AM
|
29 responses
192 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 02:59 PM
|
Comment