Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It isn't automatic. They have file the paper work first, and there's no guarantee the Supreme Court will here it.
Prove it.
The case does not automatically go to the Supreme Court. You might want to go back and read or re-read your high school government text book.
In any event, the Supreme Court has already decided what cases it will hear this year, and it will not be hearing this case this year.
Since the case extensively quotes the Supreme Court, it is unlikely the Supreme Court will review it, even more so since the Supreme Court is not in the habit of reversing its own opinions.
If you don't think this is going to the supreme court, then you are living in a fantasy land.
No way this isn't going to the highest court in the land. As I've said before, the current count is 3 rulings for, and 3 rulings against this law.
And, as others have stated, all this would mean is that the mandate is removed from the law, not the whole law.
What other areas of the law are you suggesting are unconstitutional?
Although the issue has not gotten much attention due to the high profile of the mandate question, the effective outlawing of high-deductible insurance policies is a gross restriction on our freedoms. The defective and overreaching provisions that define what policies must cover ought to be ruled unconstitutional.
Some court rulings say the act is constitutional and some say unconstitutional. I'm not even paying close attention until the Supreme Court hears the case.
Although the issue has not gotten much attention due to the high profile of the mandate question, the effective outlawing of high-deductible insurance policies is a gross restriction on our freedoms. The defective and overreaching provisions that define what policies must cover ought to be ruled unconstitutional.
I agree wholeheartedly. But AFAIK that provision hasn't been challenged. I like my high-deductible coverage, and I was told over and over that if I like my policy I would be able to keep it. Right.
I have not been following this thread, so this not a flame question a ***** question or anything like that....
But, if that mandate goes away...how can the bill survive?
I thought the bill was built around the mandate?
Technically it can survive. But removal of the mandate opens the door for people to buy coverage whenever they need treatment, and drop it when the treatment is done. Needless to say, insurance rates would skyrocket...
OTOH, the fines for violating the mandate are so low that plenty of people will do that even if the mandate stays in...
What we need is a Congress and a President that actually adheres to the limitations imposed upon them by the US Constitution and their oaths of office. Which does not include health care, marriage, education, or a myriad of other powers they have illegally usurped from the States.
If you are truly desperate for socialist state-run health care system either get your State to enact one, or move to a backward socialist nation and cough up 50%+ of your income to pay for it. But it has absolutely no business being part of our federal government.
I am bluesjuke and I wholeheartedly endorse this post.
What other areas of the law are you suggesting are unconstitutional?
I'm not.
Judge Vinson of the District Court did.
The Circuit Court overruled him in all aspects except this one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.