“Supreme Court” Upholds Health Care Law

As I mentioned on Countdown last night, my Supreme Court class (which reviews the leading cases of the term and deliberates as an alternative Supreme Court) ruled on the constitutional challenge over the individual mandate provision (we will be considering the other issues in a separate class). The class ruled 12 to 2 to reverse the 11th Circuit and uphold the health care law. The class also voted on the ethical question of Kagan’s recusal as well as their prediction of what that other Court would do. The associate justices were not sway by the stated concerns of the Chief Justice (here and here) over the future of federalism if the Act is constitutional.

The student justices found past cases dictated an affirmance but also that health care was such a large part of the economy that this is a proper use of interstate commerce jurisdiction. They rejected the distinction between activity and non-activity that is advanced in the briefs opposing the law.

On the prediction of what those nine other pretenders would do, the vote was 11 to 3 to uphold the law.

On the question of Kagan’s recusal, the class was split. However, the majority believed that she should have recused herself by a vote of 8-6.

I expect that the release of these results will make continued coverage of the other court unnecessary. Notably, the class has maintained a very high accuracy rate on predictions. This prediction also mirrors the prediction of former Supreme Court clerks.

59 thoughts on ““Supreme Court” Upholds Health Care Law

  1. Since 1965 I’ve lost contact with America. Went to Thailand to design American B-52 and F-4 airbases and make moolah. I came to Sweden in ’68, am from the beginning fully integrated here, no ties except my going to visit relatives sparely, and out of touch as to what is going on. Since coming to Turley last fall, have had lots to learn.

    So my stupid meme is a short replacement for a long explanation.

    As for sarcasm, being in a place where it is abundantly used, you have a reason to be suspicious..
    I mean what asshole calls himself stupid if it is not a step in disparaging his opponent. Should have searched for a more believeable meme.
    Suggestions are welcome.

  2. How is it CONSTITUTIONAL to force us to contribute to the profit margins of private insurance corporations who are free to jack up the prices of their premiums all the time when most of us cannot afford their monthly premiums? A similar regulation to force Medicare recipients who qualify for Medicare Part D was made during the Bushista years (minus a penalty fine) to force SSDI/Social Security/Medicare recipients to purchase prescription insurance from a private for-profit insurance corporation. The executives get obscene yearly bonuses with money we are forced to pay to enrich them.

    Even Mussolini knew that the partnership of corporations and government is fascism.

    The BETTER solution to our health care would be for us to all contribute to Medicare (as we currently do with a payroll deduction when we’re working), and increase the donation, so that ALL people can be covered via Medicare. The infrastructure is in place already via personnel who work in Medicare, but more people would need to be hired if a not-for-profit public single-payer plan was put in effect.

    It does not help us to contribute to the profits of private insurance, medical, or pharmaceutical corporations.

  3. Why isn’t “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen” relevant? The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

    It was signed into law by John Adams in 1798. At the time Thomas Jefferson was President of the Senate and Jonathan Dayton, the youngest signer of the Constitution, was Speaker of the House. If these people don’t understand the Constitution who does?

  4. “Why isn’t ‘An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen” relevant?'”

    Because that act is an example of the government taking money from, i.e. taxing, citizens and using it to provide health care for them. This scheme is similar to Medicaid or Medicare.

    That act did not, as does Obamacare, require citizens to purchase health insurance from private companies. The Sick and Disabled Seamen Act did not seek to force citizens to engage in commerce with other citizens who stood to profit from it.

  5. If the politicians had their way, they would have done just that. But public opinion is not leaning in the direction of a socialized health care system just yet. That’s why they tried this scheme of forcing people to purchase health insurance in the marketplace.

  6. Very funny Swarthmore. The nuts and bolts of Obamacare is a carbon copy of Romneycare in Massachusetts. These guys always lie. Remember when Obama railed against Hillary’s plan for an individual mandate during the 2008 campaign? He was all for a single-payer system. Turns out he wasn’t really against her idea after all. I hope that didn’t surprise you.

  7. Richard Faircloth:

    “To me, it’s sad to think that highly educated young people would see a socialist form of government as a solution to a problem that was caused by over regulation.”

    ***********************

    To me it’s sad to think that highly educated people would fail to see that every capitalistic society has some system designed to promote the general welfare. Label it whatever you will, but it’s there. It’s hard to imagine an intelligent person living in such a black and white world with so little perception of what is happening around him. Even Adam Smith, the misunderstood Father of Capitalism, believed society had an obligation to protect its weaker members by using the wealth of the stronger. He articulated this in his greatest work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments:.

    “According to this article in the New Statesman by Amartya Sen, winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics, Smith’s doubts [rational selfishness] and qualifications appear in his much-ignored first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments:

    Smith saw the task of political economy as the pursuit of “two distinct objects”: “first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and second, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services”. He defended such public services as free education and poverty relief, while demanding greater freedom for the indigent who receives support than the rather punitive Poor Laws of his day permitted. Beyond his attention to the components and responsibilities of a well-functioning market system (such as the role of accountability and trust), he was deeply concerned about the inequality and poverty that might remain in an otherwise successful market economy. Even in dealing with regulations that restrain the markets, Smith additionally acknowledged the importance of interventions on behalf of the poor and the underdogs of society. At one stage, he gives a formula of disarming simplicity: “When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.” Smith was both a proponent of a plural institutional structure and a champion of social values that transcend the profit motive, in principle as well as in actual reach.

    ~John H. Richardson, author of Adam Smith, Socialist

  8. VN: venerical (diseases) now

    Asch, you know and I give him the reply he loves:
    “With every breath”.
    Cuba is a healthy place, free medical care and guaranteed no over weight people.

    Why don’t you take North Korea too.
    But South Korea has also free health care, and the best math kids in the world. Figure (!) that., VN

  9. idealist707, I clearly misread your original comment to me and again apologise. Also, as you may have hinted, I use plenty of sarcasm myself.

    You sound like you’ve had a pretty interesting time of it and seen a lot of things and places in depth.

    I havn’t much of an answer to your original question. I’m not really sure why Obama would be ruined if he doesn’t get his way. What puzzles me, is if getting his way is so generally important for everyone to follow now, then why the hell didn’t he just ask for a strong public option? If the most conservative Supreme Court since the gilded age has to bend over because it’s the presidents entire legislative accomplishment, then surely a few Dems in congress would have bent over for some sane rational price regulation, no?

    Perhaps it is because Obama put too many of his eggs in one basket or at least that is what his detractors are claiming. He may have felt he could afford to spend all that time on it since he only had a few f**king retards on his left and the brainiacs on the right should have recognized he was their friend (after all, from wars, to spying on citizens, to initiating the Bowles/Simson commission loaded with known SS and Medicare haters, he offered more to republicans them they could ever have dreampt of accomplishing in 10 Republican administrations). And they repaid his kindness as is their want by a “Thank you, now would you please put your head in this noose?”

    And now he want the left to tear out their hearts, get thrown out of their houses en masse, and agree to pay the sheriff of Insurance every last penny they make at the end of each and every month; all to improve his chances for re-election. It’s not much to ask and it certainly looks as though he has plenty of takers.

  10. BB
    Glad to hear you re-read me without the suspicion I admitted was rational here.
    Your take on the situation is better informed than mine (about the commission for instance), and the sad view is only too true.

    The ultimate conspiracy theory just occurred to me.

    The Dems were taken over by infiltration, buyout, whatever—–and now even Dem presidents are actual Repubs. They just hold another profile but do much the same crap. Remember Michael Moore’s assessment that Clinton was the most successful Republican president in the last 40 years.
    Not that I’m a buddy of Moore, but he does put out some ideas worth considering—-especially his list of Clinton’s record on laws passed..

    Glad to be on speaking terms again.

Comments are closed.