Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama might have a Supreme Court majority on the health care law (238 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Armando, I like coffeetalk's reading of Scalia's (0+ / 0-)

    probable response in his/her reply, but let's cut to the chase. I picture Justice Antonin Scalia saying with a straight face,

    If Congress decided that uninsured but treated citizens were the cause of runaway increases in health insurance premiums, and that it was necessary and proper to control this 'improper stimulation' of interstate commerce, Congress was at liberty to enact, as part of the underlying legislation, a clause exempting hospitals from providing service to uninsured citizens.
    The fact that such a clause would be political suicide for every member of the enacting legislative body wouldn't bother him a bit, and might even 'stimulate' his desire to show his disdain for government mandates by writing such a view into history via his dissent.

    Of course, if he has four other justices agreeing with him that individual mandates are wrong, their majority decision against the mandate will be worded more circumspectly. They simply wouldn't use the "have they no poorhouses" argument in a winning effort.
    •  I'm not sure what you are prefering (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here of the Necessary and Proper Clause, McColloch, Raich and Comstock. I do not think any of the commenters taking the view of coffeetalk understand it. I've seen no evidence of understanding at least.

      That Scalia might do whatever he wants is a different point altogether.

      That is the Legal Realist point. I am of that school.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site