Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Court v. Health Care?

Scott Lemieux has a sensible take on the Supreme Court's likely response to legal challenges to health-care reform, and how much Bush v. Gore should or shouldn't play into our thinking on that.

By Ezra Klein  |  March 25, 2010; 8:46 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Vote-a-rama update
Next: 'Garbage, in one word'

Comments

Still, the very essence of that piece is to assume the conservative justices "know" that their activism can be destructive.

However, what Lemieux and others don't understand is that these kind of conservatives are saboteurs and their goal is to tear down and destroy progressive institutions at any cost.

Bush V Gore, long-standing local gun laws be-damned, and Citizen's united are just the beginning of their Nero-like scheme of "tearing down then rebuild".

Posted by: Lomillialor | March 25, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Good comments at that site, and one comment offers a link to a piece regarding Wyden on states having the authority under this reform to make their own health care reform system so long as it meets . Interesting.

"there is also an individual mandate that would require Americans to purchase insurance coverage. But states that found the mandate objectionable could simply create and insert a new system in its place. All it would require is applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a 180-day window to confirm or deny such a waiver.
---

"That language has been inserted, almost verbatim, into the bill Obama signed into law on Tuesday. And if there is any confusion about how much leverage it gives states to drop the mandate, Wyden cleared it up months ago during a hearing at the Senate Finance Committee.

"So let us review how the waiver language works now, because my reading of what we have in the bill now is, if a state can demonstrate that they can meet the criteria -- particularly on cost containment, improving the delivery system -- they can do it without an individual mandate," the senator said at the time. "And can I ask counsel, is that a correct reading of the Waiver Amendment that I offered the chairman has accepted at this point?"

The counsel replied: "Yes."

---

heh heh

Posted by: HalHorvath | March 25, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I believe that we can all agree that the purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of the Federal government. The Founders believed that whenever the power of government expands, individual freedom receedes.
If Congress, using the Commerce Clause, can make anyone and everyone buy insurance then they can make anyone and everyone buy anything and everything. If the power of Congress is that unlimited, then the People are no longer free, the States no longer sovereign and the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Where is the authority for this in the Constitution. What about the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights which clearly spells out the limits of Federal power. and where does the "consent of the governed" comes into play? Federal power is not that broad and even the Supreme Court has stated that there are limits to the Commerece Clause. As to the claim in Gonzeles vs Raich that even "non-economic activity" has an impact on the effective regulation of interstate commerce, I would say that doing "nothing" (i.e. not purchasing insurance is not activity at all. This is just another power grab by the Federal government. The time has come to end this gluttony of power, even if it means a Section V Constitutional Convention.

Posted by: acahorvath | March 25, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

The true Legal war is not over HealthCare but religious freedoms. While communists send Christians to Jail, our forefathers believed that religious freedom was a fundamental right. For this reason native Americans are still allowed to hunt whales, fish for salmon, and even laughably use hallucinogenic peyote according to their cultural and religious beliefs. Therefore, do such freedoms also apply to the rest other Americans, or are we all doomed to Ridicule, JAIL, and a Revisionist History under the Obamacare? Well . . .in studying the Amish Scientists have concluded that this sect of people eat, sleep, and walk in the same way as other Americans. Based on this amazing research lawyers have become resigned to the fact that the Amish can CHOOSE a life outside of Big Government Healthcare. The Amish are allowed a RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION to Obamacare because they have an UNALIENABLE RIGHT to place their bodies under the jurisdiction, protection, and providence of God. Therefore, sign me up. Millions and Millions of Peaceful Tea Partiers are gathering around this simple truth, that We Are Not Marxist Thugs from Chicago. To summarize . . . Washington is ready to roll it's tanks into Tiananmen Square, but my money is on the Amish and the Tea Party.

Posted by: givenallthings | March 26, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company