Will the Supreme Court Declare the Health Care Mandate Unconstitutional?

[low preference guy]

Will it be a 5-4 decision? Who will vote for and against it?

[kkassam]

Will be struck down in a 5-4 decision. Kennedy to side with the conservatives.

[lynnf]

Unconstitutional:
Roberts
Scalia
Thomas
Kennedy
Alito

Constitutional
Ginsburg
Breyer
Sotomayor
Kagan

[Michael Landon]

Constitutional

Ginsburg
Breyer
Sotomayor
Kagan
Roberts
Scalia
Thomas
Kennedy
Alito

I think we're screwed. These Justices are bought and paid for and thus will rule in favor of Obamacare. Maybe it won't be all 9 but they will vote for it.

- ML

[awake]

Gammon's Law , "In a bureaucratic system, increases in expenditure will be matched by a fall in production.… Such systems will act rather like 'black holes' in the economic universe, simultaneously sucking in resources, and shrinking in terms of … production."

[cindy25]

4-4
Thomas, Alito, Roberts Scalia vote for freedom
Breyer, Sotomeyor, Kagan, Kennedy vote for big govt.

Ginsburg will be dead by the time this comes up, and I can't see the GOP letting Obama have the 5th vote

[Fox McCloud]

I don't think it'll be struck down, sadly, but I do think it'll be fairly close.

[mczerone]

The Circuit Court opinion found it unconstitutional based on two separate grounds: the regulation was too pervasive and lacked meaningfully bounded standards, and the tax penalty was similarly overbroad.

I think that the court will establish a new test for whether a law comports with the commerce clause, agreeing that the penalty is unconstitutional, but being silent as to whether the mandate itself is constitutional. This will force the congress to either drop the mandate wholesale, or more likely, to lay out a more strictly defined penalty more related to "interstate commerce" (e.g. penalizing anyone in the market place if they themselves or their employees if they don't have coverage - thus mandating any employer, employee, or self-employed person to have health insurance, but leaving out general taxpayers).

So, I think Scotus will Affirm at least part of the Circuit court decision, but will leave the door open for a mandate under slightly different format.

[AxisMundi]

Constitutional

Ginsburg
Breyer
Sotomayor
Kagan
Roberts
Scalia
Thomas
Kennedy
Alito

I think we're screwed. These Justices are bought and paid for and thus will rule in favor of Obamacare. Maybe it won't be all 9 but they will vote for it.

- ML

While I believe that attempting to judge the outcome of such a ruling based solely along partisan lines is foolhardy, your rabid anti-SCOTUS comments are just as silly, I'm afraid.

For example, there were conservative Justices who voted in favor of Roe v Wade, and one liberal Justice who voted against.

I do sincerely think that SCOTUS will indeed strike down the national health care mandate, and I do sincerely trust that they will, due to grounds other members have already listed.

Please remember, the way to save this Nation is through rational behaviors and logical thoughts, changes at the voting booth and keeping in touch with our Elected Employees. Hysterical, media driven drivel only harms the effort to right the listing ship that is our Nation ATM.

[Philhelm]

I agree. I think it will be a 4-5 vote; we lose. Hopefully I'm wrong.

[nate895]

I voted "yes" because I am optimistic. Kennedy often sides with the conservatives on some of the cases that are in the spotlight like this one. You have to be weary of him when no one is paying attention, or when liberals take the popular side.

As for Landon's comment, that's just ridiculous. Thomas will, no doubt, oppose this. Scalia, Roberts, and Alito almost certainly will as well. Kennedy is the swing vote, as usual. I think it's 60-40 in favor of him rejecting just because of his past behavior on these types of issues. He tends to favor state's rights, as well. However, he did rule in favor of New London in Kelo v. New London, but that was a local case, so it only slightly increases the odds of him siding with the liberals.

[Pericles]

Will be struck down in a 5-4 decision. Kennedy to side with the conservatives.

I'm saying this.

[Krugerrand]

Is there any reason Kagan will have to be off the case? If so, it would be helpful if at least there is a favorable (for us) ruling going into the court so that a tie comes down on our side.

[fisharmor]

I think SCOTUS needs to pull their heads out of the sand and look at what's going on around them.
If there ever was a time for them to make a political decision, it is now.
This case is coming from a land soaked in the blood of men who fought against this idea. Despite a century and a half of massive campaigns to silence them, their ghosts still whisper in the ears of the living.
Other states are forming similar ideas, and don't have the baggage to prevent them from entering the ring.

SCOTUS is standing in front of the US's coffin, and Virginia is handing them the hammer and nails. (And she's probably smiling an evil grin as she does it.)

[itshappening]

Supreme will rule in favor of big gov't because they're part of the state

it will be a 5-4 towards big gov't and an expanding commerce clause

[itshappening]

Actually Kagan should step aside on this as she was part of Obama's cabinet when it went through and im sure she has prejudiced herself with her statements that she believes the gov can do whatever it wants.

that could be interesting.

[american.swan]

The Circuit Court opinion found it unconstitutional based on two separate grounds: the regulation was too pervasive and lacked meaningfully bounded standards, and the tax penalty was similarly overbroad.

I think that the court will establish a new test for whether a law comports with the commerce clause, agreeing that the penalty is unconstitutional, but being silent as to whether the mandate itself is constitutional. This will force the congress to either drop the mandate wholesale, or more likely, to lay out a more strictly defined penalty more related to "interstate commerce" (e.g. penalizing anyone in the market place if they themselves or their employees if they don't have coverage - thus mandating any employer, employee, or self-employed person to have health insurance, but leaving out general taxpayers).

So, I think Scotus will Affirm at least part of the Circuit court decision, but will leave the door open for a mandate under slightly different format.

I like what you said. They'll attack only part of it.

[Slutter McGee]

You really haven't paid much attention in your civics classes huh. The supreme court may have a problem with rabid idealogues, but the justices are not bought and paid for. The idea that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts will all vote to uphold the bill is just silly.

Slutter McGee