Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually the Supreme Court can hear the constitutional challenges rather soon. Most likely within a 1 year timeframe. They can expedite the challenge due to the number of cases involved, the seriousness of the matter, and to stop different federal courts from trying the same case all across the country, and just lump them all together..
The Court may want to deal with this in the same manner as it dealt with the various birther suits. Accept a petition and then summarily deny it cert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I've seen the link before. Soon as you tell me how healthcare insurance cross the state line, I'll agree that the commerce clause holds relevance..
Health insurance is plainly interstate commerce -- there isn't the slightest doubt about it -- and the whiner case fails against both the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. You have no actual case to bring here...
Actually, the cases have to start in lower courts and work themselves up through the appellate courts and so on.
No. That is incorrect. The Supreme Court is an appellate Court. That part is true. However, it does have original jurisdiction in some cases. One example: The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in disputes between the states.
Napolitano is a FoxNews Contributor and very conservative. However, he was a sitting judge and a law professor for many, many years. He certainly knows the law.
I don't think anyone can possibly say with any certainty how this will play out. I disagree with Judge Napolitano a lot of the time. But I think he is dead on this time.
Do you all know that there will be years of crap in lower courts before the Supremes get to rule? We have to know that it will have to be some real time so Obama has time to appoint some more liberal judges. Actually, the cases have to start in lower courts and work themselves up through the appellate courts and so on. Only if the Supreme Court wants to take one of those many cases out of order. That won't likely happen.
I don't pay any more attention to CNN than you do Fox so that leaves me on the outside looking in.
I can just see it now.. a lower court rules the bill illegal, right around the time Obama is running for re-election so he can appeal the ruling, and he has to campaign on this bill all over again.
In reality though, I cant see the Supreme Court allowing this to work its way through the court system. It makes little sense to have the same trial going on in various courts in the country only to have it ultimately end up at the Supreme Court..
The Court may want to deal with this in the same manner as it dealt with the various birther suits. Accept a petition and then summarily deny it cert.
Dream on.. I'm willing to bet that out of dozens of lawsuits filed by the states, that there is at least one lawyer more competent than Orly Taitz Esq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Health insurance is plainly interstate commerce -- there isn't the slightest doubt about it -- and the whiner case fails against both the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. You have no actual case to bring here...
you wish.. The Commerce Clause argument fails because insurance DOES NOT cross the state lines, and the General Welfare Clause fails because individual health is for the INDIVIDUAL welfare. If you think my breathing is justification for federal oversight into my life, then there isnt one thing in Washington which cant be regulated.
he Commerce Clause argument fails because insurance DOES NOT cross the state lines
That is the dumbest thing I have read in a long time. Insurance does cross state lines. Just think about all the federal regulations...HIPPA, COBRA, etc.....
That is the dumbest thing I have read in a long time. Insurance does cross state lines. Just think about all the federal regulations...HIPPA, COBRA, etc.....
No, HIPPA has nothing to do with insurance, it deals with information and documents. Its a privacy act, not an insurance policy.
COBRA is a law requiring group insurance plans to offer employees care after they leave a company. They are NOT insurance companies, they allow continued coverage after an individual no longer has a job. The individuals pays for BY CHOICE.. Do you know the difference between CHOICE and a MANDATE?
If you think I am wrong, list ONE insurance company that crosses the state line Mr smarty pants..
No, HIPPA has nothing to do with insurance, it deals with information and documents. Its a privacy act, not an insurance policy.
Of course I understand that they are not insurance policies. However, they do involve insurance companies and the ways in which the companies are allowed to opporate and to collect money. Therefore, there is clearly a federal component in play.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
