Oh, but they'll claim their arguments were just fine, it's this biased conservative court that's the problem. National Review covers a lot of ground in this piece, but here's what they say about the ideological court:
In recent reports, it’s been noted that 20 percent of the Court’s cases were decided 5–4 in the 2010 term. True, but 48 percent of the cases were decided 9–0, which reflects a pattern that has held for years. Is the Roberts Court any more divided than the William Rehnquist Court in 2000, when 30 percent of the cases were decided 5–4? Is the fact that Roberts and Alito agree 96 percent of the time really more troubling than the fact that Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor agree 94 percent of the time?I hope they make the right decision. A wrong decision here, combined with Kelo, means that Americans essentially have no rights remaining that the government doesn't grant.
Update: Why did legal elites underestimate the case against the mandate?
Ridiculing the need for a limiting principle or other anti-mandate arguments may get approving nods in the faculty lounge, but, as we saw this week, it won’t receive an equally warm welcome in court.
7 comments:
The actors within this administration seem to think they can do no wrong. They truly believe that people want this atrocity. That's what their biased internal polling tells them over and over. They can't bear listening to average Americans because it upsets their systems to realize that while you can make polls say whatever you want, you cannot do the same thing with people.
@Ellen K
They don't care if people don't want this crap. We have to eat our peas and they are the adults who will handle us children.
What drives me nuts is as of right now I'll still give B Hussein a 50/50 shot of winning another term.
Big possibility this will just expedite the move to single payer as more and more Americans are priced out of coverage. While critics might say that is just a liberal pipe dream, it makes sense to those of us with pre-existing conditions who purchase coverage on the open market.
The Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and Romney all had good points years ago about the free market principle behind the requirement that all participants in the market - which means anyone alive - contribute via insurance to avoid free riders on the system.It's a shame they turned on their own free market idea simply because the opposing party sought to implement it. Medicare for all will arrive after all and sooner if the ACA is overturned.
I, however, would have preferred the Healthy Americans Act, or Wyden-Bennet plan, which would have preserved private insurers and providers and created one free and open market with 300 million consumers in the same pool.
Damn shame we missed that great opportunity.
You're right, it *is* a pipe dream. And I hope it stays that way.
This is not all that might put lefties in a tizzy: the Second Amendment Foundation has had four significant gun rights litigation victories in March:
March 5: Maryland Carry Law Unconstitutional.
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=395
March 8: Seattle Gun Ban Appeal Denied.
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=396
March 29: North Carolina Emergency Powers Ban.
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=397
March 30: Gun Ban for Resident Aliens Struck Down.
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=398
These couples with the Obamacare arguments make March a terrible month for Progressive litigation.
I don't see why we can't just give people the option to buy into Medicare. That's something else I find funny, people saying "why can't we have single payer" or "America is *never* going to have a single-payer system" when in fact we already do: Medicare.
@Matt
To answer your question, it is 26 trillion dollars underfunded over the next 50, already paying more out than it's taking in, a significant part of medical inflation and it's not of question of will it collapse but it has already collapsed.
Post a Comment