For decades, the Supreme Court was solely responsible for abusing the Commerce Clause in the name of collectivism. I cannot see the High Court changing direction now irrespective of anything in Hillarycare II. The latest ruling from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia convinces me that the SCOTUS will not overturn the Affordable Care Act: At issue is whether the individual mandate falls under a clause in the Constitution allowing Congress to regulate commerce between the states. I have less faith in Congress than I have in federal judges, yet there is no choice but to believe that repeal is the way to go. Exposing federal judges as a priesthood is the only positive thing coming out of the Affordable Care Act. Im convinced that the transition from judge to priest began in the early part of the 20th century when Socialists convinced the country that capitalism, robber barons, and private property were so immoral only totalitarian government could rein them in. The villain atmosphere created by early American Socialists cried out for a priesthood. Federal judges were quick to step into the moral vacuum engineered by an effete intelligentsia sicker than the people they promised to cure. Every attack on the Constitution and the private sector the federal government carried out in recent decades smells of the machinations filthy priesthoods invented. If Im correct about this, Hussein is surely their latest spiritual leader based on Affordable Care Act rulings to date. The reason for the transition from judge to priest is not that hard to understand. Everybody wants to be a priest; everybody wants to impose their morality on everybody else in order to compensate for their own moral failings; if not impose, at least make everybody listen to the sermon. When American judges do it they are as dangerous as any priesthood governing a theocracy. Appeals court upholds Obamas health care law By Paige Winfield Cunningham The Washington Times Tuesday, November 8, 2011 In a frank ruling upholding President Obamas new health care law, a federal appeals court said Tuesday the individual mandate requiring all Americans to buy health insurance encroaches on individual liberty, but is still constitutional because it allows the government to solve a national problem. In a 2-1 ruling that delivered a victory to the White House, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia became the second appellate panel to uphold the individual mandate. Judge Laurence H. Silberman said requiring individuals to purchase health insurance is no different than other obligations the government imposes, such as requiring businesses to serve all customers regardless of race. The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local or seemingly passive their individual origins, Judge Silberman wrote in the majority opinion. Brought by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a Christian legal group, the case involved five plaintiffs who said they could face thousands of dollars in fines for failing to purchase health insurance. They also argued that the mandate violated their religious freedom. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for ACLJ, said the organization would either ask the full appeals court to hear the case or ask the Supreme Court to take it up. We still remain confident that Obamacare and the individual mandate, which forces Americans to purchase health insurance, is the wrong prescription for America and ultimately will be struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. At issue is whether the individual mandate falls under a clause in the Constitution allowing Congress to regulate commerce between the states. Supporters say the mandate falls within appropriate bounds because everyone requires health care at some point in their lives thus requiring someone to pay for it. But opponents charge that Congress exceeded its authority in passing the mandate, and that if allowed to stand, there will be no limit to what Americans may be required to buy. Judge Harry T. Edwards agreed with Judge Silberman, who wrote that the apparent absence of a limit on Congress ability to require Americans to purchase any product or service was troubling, but not fatal. The health insurance market is a rather unique one, both because virtually everyone will enter or affect it, and because the uninsured inflict a disproportionate harm on the rest of the market as a result of their later consumption of health care service, Judge Silberman wrote. Randy Barnett, who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University, called it the most ambitious, the most far-reaching claim of federal power decision of any court to rule on the individual mandate so far. It yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, Mr. Barnett said. [The Founders] declined to put something like that in the Constitution cause it was proposed at the Constitutional Convention, and they didnt put it on there. Thats a huge deal. The lower court rulings likely will be considered by the Supreme Court next year, when it is expected to take up the challenges to the Affordable Care Act. With the decision by the D.C. Circuit, and a similar decision by the 6th Circuit in June, appeals courts have ruled 2-1 in favor of the individual mandate. The 11th Circuit struck the individual mandate down in August, but upheld the rest of the law. Three other appeals courts have said challenges are outside their jurisdiction. While most rulings over the Affordable Care Act have split along party lines, with Republican-appointed judges generally opposing the individual mandate and Democrat-appointed judges generally favoring it, Judge Silberman was appointed by President Reagan. Judge Edwards was appointed by President Carter. Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented, saying the court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the case. The White House has asked the Supreme Court to rule on the challenges during its current term, before Mr. Obama seeks re-election next November. Spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter applauded the Tuesday ruling, expressing confidence that the Supreme Court will reach the same conclusion. The ruling is yet another victory for the millions of Americans who are already benefiting from the law, including the parents of children with pre-existing conditions, women getting mammograms with no out-of-pocket costs, seniors saving hundreds of dollars on their prescription drugs, and 1 million young adults now newly insured through their parents plan, she said. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/8/appeals-court-upholds-obamas-health-care-law/
the right to be 100% free of regulation is an absolute right. there are either rights or not rights, not degrees of rights. degrees of rights are privileges and no longer are a right. the court is engaged in double think, double speak etc. and has been since its inception. while congress does have the "authority" to write legislation it presumable must go to the states legislatures and to the people for a vote then back to the states legislatures to be entered in to the record on a national level. Oh wait we forgot about the "people" step didnt we. the people have not voted on a thing, the little mob on the hill did, yet peole are so brainwashed that they claim they were represented when they never expressed their wishes in the first place. imagine giving a cut throat lawyer power to eternally represent you and that is the last time you ever talk to them yet they take over from there passing crap on your behalf claiming its in your name. that is the real world we live in. and anything at all can be commercialized now cant it, so the supreme court has jurisdiction over everything. then lets not stop there, lets talk about the so called "right" of the state to do the same thing. Another so called right never voted on by the people. see the abrahamson case where the state can "claim" you as a citizen against your will! Only in america are peoples minds so twisted is that called "freedom". ALL gubafia programs require one thing and one thing ONLY. MO MONEY! PAY UP! the gubafia has stepped in and become the new religion, they have no jurisdiction to make any moral decision, that is the jurisdiction of an ecclesiastical court which of course does not exist in america and have been replaced by commercial courts. There is no need to have an ecclesiastic court in the land of animals and vassals who are bought and paid for.
To Kokomojojo: Your analysis is right on target. Your reasoning indicates the SCOTUS will NOT overturn Hillarycare II. Kagan should recuse herself but she wont, and Justice Kennedy is a wild card. Still, I was cheered up by this article. Hope it does the same for you if you have the time to read it: The Bell Tolls for Obamacare By Peter Ferrara on 11.23.11 @ 6:08AM The key to the Supreme Court's upcoming ruling will be clear recognition of constitutional alternatives to Obamacare. http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/23/the-bell-tolls-for-obamacare
