Obamacare just committed suicide before the SCOTUS

I wrote a law review article dealing with this area of law. The current standard for Economic Due Process which is exactly what this case is decided on stated or unstated was decided in West Coast Hotel in 1937. That case overruled Lochner. It stated that if there is a communal interest for the law then it is proper. I am curious to see if the court takes the honest approach and directly overrules this case bringing Lochner back into play or bypass it in their language creating a mess in precedent and law. Griswold is the case that created Substantive Due Process for issues of personal concern like sex or your body Roe is in the line of these cases. The Republicans for years have argued that these cases are Judicial Activism. They in fact argue against Lochner as well. It was a radical idea to argue for Lochner more of a Libertarian belief it would cripple the federal government.

BTW, I argued for Lochner in my paper. I was once one of them dude....some of us grow up however...Republicans evidently need there diapers changed and are about to create complete chaos. They are so absolutely short sighted right now....this has the potential to be doomz day. Everyone has lost their mind and Foxnews is absolute Al Jahzeer type of shit right now. It is so unpatriotic how bad they are. They are attempting to convince everyone this is not a big deal and Obama is stating falsehoods...in truth this is the biggest political event of our lifetime.

 

Could you rephrase this into a form that someone with only a college degree and perhaps a JD can understand? I have no idea what your post means.

 

I'm not getting it. Can you break it down a little further for me?

 

NM, your second post helps.

 

you can't be series.

 

What constitutes communal benefit? A majority of Americans?

 

It is this simple the law of this country was made in 1937 it is what allowed for the New Deal et al....all of our regulations are proper and allowed because of the law that was made in 1937. Under Lochner we had Laissez Faire government if you recall...in fact that was because the government could not make laws regulating economic concerns much of the time. If the court strikes down the mandate many federal laws will be assailed. The courts will be flooded with litigation and frankly the federal government will have trouble operating many of its agencies.

How am I crazy for stating it is radical to want to go back to the rule of law pre-1937? Who the hell is being radical here? Foxnews has published several articles written by radicals who are saying Obama is crazy for what he said. In fact, I have never agreed with Obama more then yesterday. He is right on to anyone who is aware of the issues and is not bias. Agree or disagree this would be a major turn and change in law.

 

It is very broad the West Coast court even stated it could change with the time. As such, no court has found anything violated economic due process since pre-1937. IP we are talking about going back to a Laissez-Faire Government. This is like a coup by the judiciary if the case is decided that way. I do think they will try to temper their ruling by stating there case only applies to these facts and in this context etc...but it will not matter. It will be less than a month before other cases are filed challenging many federal laws.

 

Why does everything about the judicial branch sound like bullshit to me, these days?

 

I'm lost again. What laws have been upheld in the last 75 years that allow the federal government to require individual citizens to purchase something under threat of fine or imprisonment?

 

1. Much of it is;

2. Almost all of the reporting on it is.

 

Politics is all about winning now. It has little to do with beliefs.

Orin Hatch Senator...on Judiciary Committee several years ago.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (today), R-Utah, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, called it a "fantasy" to think "every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist.'"

So what changed?

 

the much used example is social security. what is lost of course is that this mandate is not a tax used for federal purposes.

 

Do you have car insurance? What happens if you do not? If you own certain businesses you have to have insurance by law. Immunizations are required and cost money. It is actually not a radical idea at all. Turn off foxnews and come back to us...

 

Not sure I understand.

Should any law ever be challenged as unConstitutional?

 

i don't have to own a car. i don't have to own a business. and insurance is completely regulated by individual states. immunizations are required by whom? tell that to the scientologists. argue you think it's constitutional, fine, but it's ridiculous to argue that this law is the same as the ones you listed and isn't a new animal.

 

Vitriol, soundbites, and red herrings aren't really effective debate strategies.

Forget the difference in require conditions to be granted privileges, such as the ability to drive or operate a business or attend school--important legal distinctions not present in this issue--and tell me which one of your examples is imposed by the federal government, please.

 

So you are saying people with no insurance do not walk into emergencies expecting to be treated? Is that treatment a privilege? We either have to allow ERs to refuse to treat by repealing EMTALA or we have to have this mandate. It is absolutely a vital communal concern.

 

those are the only two options available? charity can't be a factor?

 

Where did I say that?

I do not know much about EMTALA. Does it require private citizens to purchase something? Or does it require certain types of facilities to meet standards such as treating walk-ins regardless of insurance status if they wish to receive certifications and payments from the federal government? Those seem like different things to me.