"Obamacare" will be upheld 6-3. Why? Scalia (+Thomas). Great short read

[underpants]

Why Obamacare will survive in the Supreme Court

By: RICHARD J. BONNIE, ANDREW J. PEACH | Times-Dispatch
Published: March 06, 2011 Updated: March 06, 2011 - 12:00 AM
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/mar/06/tdcomm02-why-obamacare-will-survive-in-the-supreme-ar-884246/

However, most constitutional experts do not expect this to be a close case.

The majority of at least six justices will include both Kennedy and one of the court's most predictably conservative votes, Antonin Scalia.

---

(Gonzales v. Raich) The court rejected the constitutional challenge in a 6-3 decision; the majority included both Kennedy and Scalia. In his concurring opinion, Scalia noted the commerce clause empowers Congress to regulate not only the "channels" and "instrumentalities" of interstate commerce but also intrastate activities that "substantially affect" interstate commerce, and that the constitution authorizes Congress to enact measures that are "necessary and proper" to effectuate its objectives when exercising authority under the commerce clause or any other enumerated power.

---

But if Scalia remains faithful to his analysis in Raich , the issue for him will not come down to whether the commerce clause itself extends to inactivity. The question will be whether the individual mandate is a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the necessary and proper clause, and based on his opinion in Raich, it is difficult to see how he could find the mandate unconstitutional.

In the final analysis, Obamacare's individual mandate may be imprudent, a product of haste, partisanship and political miscalculation, and a novel and expansive exercise of federal power. But however vociferous the objections may be, it is well within Congress' constitutional authority as understood by a firm majority of the Supreme Court, including Scalia.


Richard Bonnie is the Harrison Foundation Professor of Medicine and Law, and Professor of Public Policy at the University of Virginia, where he directs the Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy.

[elleng]

1. Right; government was smart to include Kennedy + Scalia words

and discussion in their briefs, and very important for people to understand this, and not assume the Supremes vote based on their assumed political leanings:

'However, most constitutional experts do not expect this to be a close case.

The individual mandate admittedly presents what lawyers call a case of first impression — meaning that Congress has never done anything quite like this before. However, if the justices adhere to well-established constitutional principles and do not disavow their previous rulings, a firm majority of the court will rule that the individual mandate is within Congress' constitutional authority.

The majority of at least six justices will include both Kennedy and one of the court's most predictably conservative votes, Antonin Scalia.'

[modrepub]

2. If trash is protected as interstate commerce

then I don't see why health insurance isn't.

[Doctor_J]

3. This must be a satirical piece

But if Scalia remains faithful to his analysis in Raich, <yada yada yada...>

Scalia is well-known for his ad-hoc decisions. He said re: bush v. Gore, "Yes, I am overturning the will of the people, but my decision in this case is only for this case - no precedent should be taken from it"

So if these authors expect his ruling in this case to somehow be based on his past rulings, they're sadly mistaken.

Edit: If you want a clue as to how Fat Tony and Slappy will vote on this one, a better indicator than their past rulings would be who they've been getting bribes from recently. Check their recent purchases, hunting trips, speaking fees, and so on. they are so corrupt they don't even bother to hide their graft.