Your opinion: Obamacare mandate will be ruled unconstitutional. True or False

[Ben Yehuda]

I think true.

[Rubystars]

I voted true out of wishful thinking.

[Ben Yehuda]

Well we'll know soon enough; I think the ruling will be at the end of June. My prediction is 5 to 4 right down party lines.

[angryChineseKahanist]

no.

[ProJewGreekChristian]

The mandate to purchase insurance will be overruled. But I believe the Court is considering "reading in" a severability clause through the intent of Congress or something that will allow the other portions thereof to be upheld. I cannot see the whole law being struck down. Conversely, I cannot see the mandate being upheld no matter what. Kennedy (arguably the deciding vote) is going at the Solicitor Gen. with questioning showing his concern for the Government's reasoning.

[jbeige]

I don't believe it will be overruled, I think the mandate will stay because Kennedy is liberal leaning and sounded like he was worried about people having health insurance.
I like the way these judges try to decide and create laws from the bench, they are there to interrupt the law and the constitution.

[HiWarp]

I don't believe it will be overruled, I think the mandate will stay because Kennedy is liberal leaning and sounded like he was worried about people having health insurance.
I like the way these judges try to decide and create laws from the bench, they are there to interrupt the law and the constitution.

Did you mean interpret? If so, you are mistaken. No authority to interpret the Constitution is given to the Supreme Court.

[jbeige]

Did you mean interpret? If so, you are mistaken. No authority to interpret the Constitution is given to the Supreme Court.

Yes, I meant interpret, thanks for correcting my spelling error, I am usually in a rush when I'm on because I can't stay on long enough to check my spelling.

[ProJewGreekChristian]

Did you mean interpret? If so, you are mistaken. No authority to interpret the Constitution is given to the Supreme Court.

Are you kidding?

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.” Art. III. Section 2 of the US Const.

***

When a statute is passed under an enumerated power or eventually defended under some constitutional basis, it’s the Court’s job and the courts’ job to determine if the law is consonant therewith—through the actual text of the Const., intent of the Founders in light of the history at the time of ratification, and precedent—in accordance with the power vested in the judicial branch in Article III Section 2 of the Const.

Don’t get me wrong, the Const. has been EXTREMELY perverted; but what you said is patently false. You may be referring to judicial review, which is different, though related, and is almost surely implicit in the entire notion of a judicial branch, supposedly coequal with the other two branches. 

[muman613]

The supreme courts job is to interpret the law and make judgments based on these laws. The court cannot legislate new laws, this is the job of the legislative branch. And the final branch is the Executive which is responsible for executing the law.

[ProJewGreekChristian]

The supreme courts job is to interpret the law and make judgments based on these laws. The court cannot legislate new laws, this is the job of the legislative branch. And the final branch is the Executive which is responsible for executing the law.

You're right! But saying one of the Supreme Court's roles is not to examine constitutionally questionable laws and rule accordingly on whether challenged laws violate the Const. is not true. Marbury v. Madison anybody? lol...

[muman613]

The problem, in my opinion, is when the court becomes an 'Activist Court' and validates laws which it agrees with, and nullifies laws it does not agree with.

Such is the case with the laws which were passed defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and then the court over-ruled these laws because of it's own agenda {and the judge who overturned it happened to be gay}.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist_court

Judicial activism describes judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.[1]:1 The definition of judicial activism, and which specific decisions are activist, is a controversial political issue, particularly in the United States. The actions of unelected judges whose rulings invalidate policy decisions of elected bodies have also been described with the political epithet, judicial tyranny. This phrase is generally traced back to a comment by Thomas Jefferson, referring to the "despotic behaviour" of Federalist federal judges, in particular, John Marshall.[2] The question of judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of powers.

[HiWarp]

You're right! But saying one of the Supreme Court's roles is not to examine constitutionally questionable laws and rule accordingly on whether challenged laws violate the Const. is not true. Marbury v. Madison anybody? lol...

I did not say that the job of the Supreme Court is not to interpret the law for it's constitutionality. In fact, that is exactly what it's job is. I said there is no power granted to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution itself. The Constitution HAS been extremely perverted by a legislative branch that ignores it's enumerated powers and passes whatever the hell it wants to and by a judicial branch that often decides that Congress can do as they please regardless of the 10th amendment.