Judge Napolitano: I Think the Health Care Law Will Be Thrown Out Entirely [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Judge Napolitano: I Think the Health Care Law Will Be Thrown Out Entirely


snerd
04-01-2012, 16:14
I know we won't know for sure until June, but there seems to be a general consensus around the country.
Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Happening Now that based on the tenor of the Supreme Court justices during the oral arguments, he believes that the health care law is going to be thrown out entirely.

He said, “For Justice Kennedy to have asked the questions that he did, as early on in the argument as he did, in as sharp a way as he did, using a particular code word that he did, tells me that he has decided that this law is outside the confines of the Constitution.”......

janice6
04-01-2012, 16:17
Nancy should "unpass" it so we don't have to know what it says.

JBnTX
04-01-2012, 16:19
I wouldn't put any confidence in anything Andrew Napolitano says,
after hearing his famous "what if" nonsense.

The man's a fear mongering opportunist at best, and a kook at worst.




Judge Andrew Napolitano - What If - YouTube

snerd
04-01-2012, 16:20
...... The man's a fear mongering opportunist.
:yawn:

coastal4974
04-01-2012, 16:30
I shall believe it 3 hours after it happens.

snerd
04-01-2012, 16:36
....... The man's a fear mongering opportunist at best, and a kook at worst......
I believe he's one of the few remaining patriots that actually understands how the Constitution limits the federal government's role in our lives. He also understands the term 'original intent' when interpreting it.

kirgi08
04-01-2012, 16:48
Yep.'08.

JBnTX
04-01-2012, 17:37
I believe he's one of the few remaining patriots that actually understands how the Constitution limits the federal government's role in our lives. He also understands the term 'original intent' when interpreting it.


Yes, but it's how he delivers that understanding of the constitution that I object to.

He takes isolated and one time events to their most extreme definitions, and then presents them as an everyday occurrence that threatens the very existence of this country.

In other words, he lies.

Sporaticus
04-01-2012, 18:16
My concern is what kind of deal they will make amongst themselves to vaguely word the decision so the insurance mandate is struck down, but government can still do other things with the overall intent of the law.

The Machinist
04-01-2012, 18:43
Yes, but it's how he delivers that understanding of the constitution that I object to.

He takes isolated and one time events to their most extreme definitions, and then presents them as an everyday occurrence that threatens the very existence of this country.

In other words, he lies.
Is this an April Fool's post?

oldgraywolf
04-01-2012, 18:47
My concern is what kind of deal they will make amongst themselves to vaguely word the decision so the insurance mandate is struck down, but government can still do other things with the overall intent of the law.

This is how I envision it coming down. I doubt very much that the USSC will do anything so radical as to throw the entire law out. Justice Kennedy probably wouldn't allow that and I believe he'll have the most influence on the decision.

certifiedfunds
04-01-2012, 19:45
Yes, but it's how he delivers that understanding of the constitution that I object to.

He takes isolated and one time events to their most extreme definitions, and then presents them as an everyday occurrence that threatens the very existence of this country.



What does this nonsense mean?

Besides, lets face it, you simply object to the Constitution.

In other words, he lies. Example of a lie?

certifiedfunds
04-01-2012, 19:46
My concern is what kind of deal they will make amongst themselves to vaguely word the decision so the insurance mandate is struck down, but government can still do other things with the overall intent of the law.

like Heller

Your take is probably a pretty good one.

snerd
04-01-2012, 20:53
Is this an April Fool's post?
You're half right.

certifiedfunds
04-01-2012, 21:05
You're half right.

:rofl:

DOC44
04-01-2012, 21:18
I hope they are still around when june gets here.

Doc44

JohnnyReb
04-01-2012, 21:48
I'm thinking they will uphold the law. You know, promoting the general welfare and that interstate commence clause thing.

czsmithGT
04-01-2012, 21:54
I would be surprised if they throw it all out. I'm pretty sure it is 4-4 to make the mandate to buy insurance unconstitutional and still think Justice Kennedy could have gone either way but leaned toward killing the mandate. I give the odds of throwing the whole thing out as less than 50-50.

czsmithGT
04-01-2012, 21:57
What would happen if one of the justices got sick and incapacitated before the opinions are written and the decision is announced in June? I read that they actually voted to determine their decision last week but any justice can still change his or her mind after reading the written opinions.

DOC44
04-01-2012, 22:09
I hope they are still around when june gets here.

Doc44

What would happen if one of the justices got sick and incapacitated before the opinions are written and the decision is announced in June? I read that they actually voted to determine their decision last week but any justice can still change his or her mind after reading the written opinions.

:dunno:

Doc44

snerd
04-01-2012, 23:39
:dunno:

Doc44
Yep, I do believe they have already voted. And you can bet that the powers that be have had it leaked to them too. Lots can happen in 5 weeks though.

Brucev
04-02-2012, 06:14
He is an entertainer. So... he will approach any issues/subject from the perspective of an entertainer. As to the scotus, I have no confidence in them. The two political hacks that represent the squatter and his domestic terrorists will of course vote as their handlers tell them to vote. There are Conservatives on the sc that will vote for the Constitution. The problem is that the decision will be made by those judges whose lack of Constitutional conscience result in them being all to open to leaning left. About all that one can hope for is that the sc will throw out the mandate. They will not strike the entire law down. They lack the nerve... they lack the backbone. They want to be accepted by their legal peers more than they want to do what is Constitutional. Ultimately the real answer is to elect a Republican President and for him to then reject Marshall's doctrine of judicial review as without any basis in the Constitution.

certifiedfunds
04-02-2012, 06:31
They want to be accepted by their legal peers more than they want to do what is Constitutional.

There is something to this.

Moreover, they will consider the downstream ramifications of what they write and doors that it will open or close years from now.

Toyman
04-02-2012, 06:45
He is an entertainer. So... he will approach any issues/subject from the perspective of an entertainer. ....

He used to be a judge, and he continually presents his comments, opinions and arguments in the light of the written law, case law, constitutional law, and many other fact based sources. To say that he will approach a subject from the perspective of an entertainer is silly.

G29Reload
04-02-2012, 11:30
I'm thinking they will uphold the law. You know, promoting the general welfare and that interstate commence clause thing.

You're not big on Constitutional law, obviously.

Not a prayer. Its an abuse of the commerce clause unlike any other.

It is one thing to regulate actual commerce. It is another thing altogether to force non participants INTO commerce in order to regulate them.

The Court will rule that the FedGov cannot stir someone into commerce by compelling them to form contracts with other private parties.

In the words of Justice Kennedy, "fundamentally changing the nature of the relationship" between people and government.

The mandate will be thrown out. Vote will be 6-3, Flipper with the Conservatives. Breyer joins.

RE: Sever-ability, the entire rest of the bill will be thrown out. 5-4. Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy. Roberts, Alito or Scalia will write the Majority opinion. Remainder dissent.

That is my prediction.

certifiedfunds
04-02-2012, 12:35
You're not big on Constitutional law, obviously.

Not a prayer. Its an abuse of the commerce clause unlike any other.

It is one thing to regulate actual commerce. It is another thing altogether to force non participants INTO commerce in order to regulate them.

The Court will rule that the FedGov cannot stir someone into commerce by compelling them to form contracts with other private parties.

In the words of Justice Kennedy, "fundamentally changing the nature of the relationship" between people and government.

The mandate will be thrown out. Vote will be 6-3, Flipper with the Conservatives. Breyer joins.

RE: Sever-ability, the entire rest of the bill will be thrown out. 5-4. Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy. Roberts, Alito or Scalia will write the Majority opinion. Remainder dissent.

That is my prediction.

I think you have the wrong guy and JohnnyReb forgot to add /sarcasm/

kirgi08
04-02-2012, 13:02
:tempted:

This is a dire Issue.'08.

Goaltender66
04-02-2012, 13:12
Yep, I do believe they have already voted. And you can bet that the powers that be have had it leaked to them too. Lots can happen in 5 weeks though.

Interesting, the thought that the PtB had the vote leaked to them. It's something I was thinking as I read this covering Obama's recent remarks on the case:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obamas-pre-emptive-strike-scotus/459281

"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary event by overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress."

Sam Spade
04-02-2012, 13:29
Interesting, the thought that the PtB had the vote leaked to them. It's something I was thinking as I read this covering Obama's recent remarks on the case:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obamas-pre-emptive-strike-scotus/459281

In retrospect, I'm sure that this will be shown to be as absurd and unsupported as the Administration's confident predictions ahead of Heller and MacDonald.

G19G20
04-02-2012, 13:58
I have no faith in SCOTUS and it seems like every decision, even the most obvious ones, end up in some 5-4 decision that's vaguely worded enough to give the Feds an out. Ill go on a limb and say they let the law stand, 5-4, on yet another bastardized interpretation of the ICC. They'll throw a bone by expressly allowing insurance purchase across state lines or something like that but I dont see them fighting the heavy political pressure to keep the law largely intact. I hope Im wrong but I don't trust SCOTUS at all.

cowboywannabe
04-02-2012, 14:12
more proof that obama does not care about the u s constitution.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-health-care-law/

remember, forcing somebody (an individual) into a commerce with the government is constitutional according to these folks.

certifiedfunds
04-02-2012, 14:18
I have no faith in SCOTUS and it seems like every decision, even the most obvious ones, end up in some 5-4 decision that's vaguely worded enough to give the Feds an out. Ill go on a limb and say they let the law stand, 5-4, on yet another bastardized interpretation of the ICC. They'll throw a bone by expressly allowing insurance purchase across state lines or something like that but I dont see them fighting the heavy political pressure to keep the law largely intact. I hope Im wrong but I don't trust SCOTUS at all.

The only thing, remember Obama calling the justices out at the SOTU address?

snerd
04-02-2012, 14:19
more proof that obama does not care about the u s constitution........
If struck down, you can bet the home addresses of the judges will be tweeted, rallies will be organized, and violence will be encouraged by the left. Just another day in the land of intimidation politics.

snerd
04-02-2012, 14:20
The only thing, remember Obama calling the justices out at the SOTU address?
Payback's a mo-fo.