March 18, 2018
Health Latest News | Poll Questions | Andrew McCabe | St. Patrick's Day | Marissa Kennedy

Comments for: Review of health insurance law begins with secret Supreme Court vote

Guidelines for posting on

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    This is the brain trust that gave the election to W, decided it was a good idea to allow corporations to give unlimited money to candidates and will allow Wal-mart to tear down your house to suit their business plan. 

    I’m not sure why I still have hope that they’re going to do the right thing.

    • Anonymous

      Who’s allowing WalMart to tear down homes to suit their business plans?

      • Anonymous

        This was a decision awhile back by the Supreme Court who ruled that people’s homes could be taken from them for the purpose of development thru eminent domain.    As it turns out, the people who had resided in these homes for many years were forced to give them over to the town.   The great recession came and as far as I know this development has not taken place.  It happened in Ct.  

  • “The court’s decision will mark the first time it has ruled on a president’s biggest legislative accomplishment….” Calling this 3000 page abomination a “legislative accomplishment” is an insult to accomplishments. Noone read it, few understand it and it was crammed down our throats by Democrats and a President who has no regard for the people he supposedly serves. Listening to the Solicitor General trying to defend Obamacare was painful. Even the justices who support this type of stuff couldn’t save him. He went to a gunfight with a pea shooter. This is exactly why elections matter. Lets hope that the Supreme Court follows the constitution and strikes down this boondoggle. June can’t come soon enough.

    • Anonymous

      Unless Kennedy provides another thoughtful reversal, this decision will be on pure party ideology andextreme dislike of the current President rather than Constitutional per se.  I hope Kennedy proides the necessary wisdom and that it’s upheld.

      • If he provides the necessary wisdom it will be struck down.

  • Guest

    I’m going to reveal to all the readers of the BDN the secret outcome of this vote …

    5-4 against healthcare.

  • Guest

    I wonder if the court will want rule on the constitutionality of denying the uninsured medical treatment at our nations emergency rooms. It will come to that.

    • Anonymous

      Good point.

  • Anonymous

    If this gets struck down, it’ll be a sign of true judicial activism, and not the Republican talking point kind. For a court that determines a single individual growing pot to be “interstate commerce”, healthcare should not even be a question.

    • Guest

      I don’t see any reason why it won’t get struck down. The core group of the court has been meddling in elections now for far too long, this is just more of the same.

    • Take the time to read the transcript or listen to the oral arguments of the three days of presentations before the Supreme Court. I did. If this gets struck down it will be because the justices follow the Constitution. You can call it activism but that does not make it so.

      • Anonymous

        Read the article. The oral arguments generally do not indicate which way the court will vote on the matter. “Supreme Court arguments can be deceiving. In 2009, a hearing suggested the court was poised to strike down a central provision in the Voting Rights Act. Three months later, the court produced a compromise, an 8-1 decision that avoided ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.”

        Read my comment. If one person growing pot is “interstate activity,” how isn’t a system that we all, at some point, take part in not?

        • Read my comment. Take the time to listen or read the transcript and then maybe you can understand the issues. If you want to leap to the conclusion that judicial activism will result then go right ahead. I was talking about understanding the arguments for the constitutionality of the issue.

          • Anonymous

            To what point? I’ve heard the arguments and the questioning — still, what’s your point? The questioning doesn’t indicate one way or another how the court will likely rule.

            I do understand the arguments, obviously. That’s why I’m saying they don’t have merits. Jumping between broad and limited constitutional powers when it’s convenient strikes me as activism. I’ve read many of the recent opinions and there is a definite trend that I see. There is no leaping going on here. You get your opinion, but I also get to have mine. It’s kind of pathetic that you have to baselessly try and discredit what I’ve said simply because you disagree with me.

            I see activism. Period.

          • I agree. We don’t agree. On that we can agree. This is a great country we live in!!

      • Anonymous

        I have listened to the oral arguments and I completely disagree with you.   If this court strikes it down it will be because of judicial activism.  I believe the ACA to be constitutional.  Many conservative republican legal scholars also believe the act to be constitutional.   Charles Fried, Ronald Reagan’s Solicitor General is just one among them who believes that the ACA is absolutely constitutional.

  • Guest


  • Anonymous

    On the merits, this case offers nothing new.  The federal government has been mandating activities for half a century or more.  The clearest example is social security.  WE are not asked when we take a job if we want to participate.  We are automatically enrolled.  How is it paid for, by not only direct payroll deductions but also with matching contributions from our employers.

    When you strip away all of the media BS, this is not an unprecedented authority for the government to hold. Since 18% of our GDP is spent on health care and since all of the principal operators in the insurance market are interstate operations, the commerce clause and the general welfare clause are appropriate to support the law.

    Judicial activism was the cry of conservatives during the Bush years.  Then they seated some of the most activist judges in modern history.  This follows the general trend for the republican party.  They claim to be all about the constitution and then they obstruct the duly elected and sworn president.  On so many issues, they claim one thing while doing exactly the opposite.  This is possible because they have built a misinformation bureau to widely broadcast their lies. 

    Left unchecked, the continued increases in health care costs will destroy what is left of our competitiveness and economy.  We already spend nearly twice what any other country spends on a percentage of GDP basis.  We get terrible outcomes for this exorbitant cost.  Our nations economic health is on the line here.

    If this supreme court nullifies the law passed by the peoples representatives and signed by the people’s president, this will be another clear signal that our republic is lost.  The oligarchy that truly controls our government will have won over the welfare of our people.  I still hold out hope that there are enough true justices to maintain the law.  For the sake of our nation, I hope I am right.  There will be hell to pay if the people are denied.

You may also like