Supreme Court Skeptical On Obama’s Defense Of ObamaCare

Flopping Aces ^ | 03-26-12 | Curt

[Starman417]

Even some of the liberal judges appear skeptical about Obama's defense of ObamaCare:

On the first day of oral arguments in the case challenging President Obama’s national health care law, justices seemed skeptical that the individual mandate should be considered a tax — one of the main consitutional defenses being offered for the law.

To be clear, today’s 90 minutes of oral arguments did not concern the underlying merits of the case, but whether an 1876 law called the Anti-Injunction Act bars the Court from ruling on the suit at this time. Under the Anti-Injunction Act, people cannot challenge a tax in court until after they have paid it, something that would effectively punt the issue until at least 2015. However, there is some overlap between this question and the idea of whether the mandate is a tax, and justices on both sides of the ideological fence expressed skepticism that the mandate should be treated as a tax.

“This cannot be a revenue raising measure, because if it’s successful, there won’t be any revenue raised,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the mandate.

Another liberal on the court, Justice Stephen Breyer, said of Congress’s description of the fine for non-compliance with the mandate, “They called it a penalty and not a tax for a reason.”

Alito came in for the swoop:

Justice Sam Alito asked Verrilli whether he could point to another case in which courts identified something as not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act while still ruling it was a constitutional exercise of taxing power. Verrilli could not name any.

Bam!

First Obama said the mandate wasn't a tax, and then they said it is.

And now even the liberal judges of the Supreme Court are looking a bit wary on their argument.

[longtermmemmory]

kagen and stomayor and bryer were in unison

[X. OTerica]

Exactly right! The “tax” wouldn’t be “collected” until 2014, two years after the next election. I find it interesting that liberal Justices—as well as the Obama Administration—are leaning to it not being a tax, while conservative Justices seem to be leaning toward it being a tax. If not a tax, then SCOTUS could rule well before the election.

It just smacks of election-year politics; striking down any part of this law opens the door for all kinds of attacks against conservatives as being hateful, mean spirited, and (of course) racist.

[longtermmemmory]

so if jurisdiction exists and the law is struck down, they will have two years to “get it right”.

(if they can revive it)

[longtermmemmory]

so if jurisdiction exists and the law is struck down, they will have two years to “get it right”.

(if they can revive it)

[Defiant]

Maybe the supremes realize that somehow and some can actually respect that for a time?

That is wishful thinking my friend. Once you join the left, you become a member of a tribe of like-thinking party people. Reason and critical thinking don't matter, only what the powers that be want to do. Conservatives adhere to the rule of law because that is their philosophy. Liberals believe the rule of law is a crock, just something to use when it is on your side, and to ignore when it is not. Ginsberg has shown no inclination lately or at any time in her long and shameful career to have any independence of thought.

The last Democrat Supreme Court pick who was honest and adhered to the rule of law was Whizzer White. He's been gone a long time.

[Sequoyah101]

I know you are right, I have no illusions but still cling to hope no matter how shallow and ephemeral it may be.

Ginsberg has never once disappointed those who expect her to lurch to the left given an opportunity.

The left uses the law while others may respect it.

[Defiant]

I read about that argument yesterday, and it is interesting, but esoteric. A contract entered into under duress ("I made him an offer he couldn't refuse") is void and unenforceable. It has to be entered into freely. So the argument that entering into a contract because the government tells you you have to, at the point of a gun, ultimately, could be said to implicate that contractual defense.

I wouldn't want to rely on that argument, though. I just think that the mandate is not allowed, and further, eventually, we need to revisit Wickard v. Fillburn and the line of cases that basically allowed the federal government to do whatever it wants, eviscerating the notion of limited powers.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-—Ginsburg is wrong on so much ideologically, but she is well deserved a seat on this court. She is one of the smartest in the judicial branch.——

How can a Leftist be brilliant?

Maybe she possesses raw intelligence. I don’t know. But if she is a Leftist, she must be unable to apply her thinking skills to the world around her, in which case, her “intelligence” is worthless.

If what you say is true, she most likely lacks wisdom —intelligence without virtue. If she’s pro-abortion, this conclusion is a certainty.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

The Demonrats don’t have the House anymore.

[Graewoulf]

Dictator Baby-Doc Barack has ALWAYS ignored The US Constitution, ESPECIALLY with Obama”care.”

The cancer of Obama”care” now has invaded World Finances as Obama last week choose a “Public health expert” for the World Bank Presidency.

Romney has promised to “Repeal and REPLACE” Obama”care.”

Senator (R Tn) Son-of-a-Mitch McConnell has promised to “Repeal and REPLACE” Obama”care.”
_______

The major problem with THE NINE SUPREMES is that they are chosen for political reasons by the POTUS, and then they vote as an un-accountable democracy, for a Nation that is NOT a Democracy, but a REPUBLIC.

As a result, THE NINE SUPREMES commonly vote 5 to 4 on most issues. Constitutionality is seldom a consideration, and their up-coming ruling on Obama”care” will prove my point.

Now is the time to stand and deliver to address our grievances to the dictates of the Left.

Oppose the dictates of Dictator Baby-Doc Barack!

Our ONLY chance to ABOLISH Obama”care” rests with THE NINE SUPREMES, because Romney will be defeated by Obama.

IMHO, if Romney is anointed as the RNC Nominee, THE main issue in the National Election, Obama”care,” will be taken off the campaign table. Hence, Romney will not only lose, but suffer another crushing, and sadly typical, RINO defeat.

To those who want poster ideas, here are a few ideas for demonstration posters:

Obama”care” was robo-signed by Congress, and is therefore illegal.

Obama”care” was 2700 pages long, and is still being written, but not by Congress: witness the forced contraception coverage recently added by HHS Regulators.

Obama”care” has caused “The Catholic Spring.”

Obama”care” reduces competition, and therefore is illegal by the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law.

Obama”care” is designed to be a US Federal Government monopoly, with no competition.

Obama”care” also is illegal according to the US Constitution, because it violates our freedom of choice.

Will THE NINE SUPREMES notice any of these three violations? I seriously doubt it.

Impeached Bill Clinton proved that the US President is above US Federal Law, so anything that the President wants he gets, regardless of the Federal Laws that he has violated.

[murron]

In other words, our brains or our signatures on the contract. Hello, Luca Brazzi.

[AGreatPer]

"Once you join the left, you become a member of a tribe"

Tribe. - interesting selection of words.

[Defiant]

Tribal loyalties are always the strongest.

[andy58-in-nh]

I would be ecstatic if the Supreme Court were to invalidate Wickard v. Filburn, which is among the most destructive court decisions of the 20th century. I don't know that they will be willing to go that far; although a quite similar issue arose in that case (regulation of inaction as presumptively affecting interstate commerce).

But there is also the issue of the General Welfare clause, similarly warped by statists into a grant of Federal license to justify the exercise of non-delegated powers to the legislature. In either case, I think that Anthony Kennedy and perhaps one or two other non-conservatives may find it within themselves to ignore the tug of political pressure systems and recognize the explicit limits our founders placed upon Congress with respect to regulating purely voluntary human activities in commerce or in private life.

[AGreatPer]

"Tribal loyalties are always the strongest."

Agree with you. How true.

All we have to do is look to the East.

[Defiant]

I don’t think overturning Wickard is in the cards, but it has to be invalidated at some point in the near future if we are to restore limited government. I’d like to win this election, and get a couple more good conservatives on the court first.

[jaydee770]

>>...Well, we’re stuck with this destructive law if it isn’t repealed...which is an infinitely worse downside...<<

Friend, if Obamacare is not repealed and is ruled constitutional, Obamacare will be the least of our worries.

The fed congress will read that ruling as a signal that anything they can possibly imagine is allowable and the atrocities they can think up after that will make Obamacare laughable in comparison.

The SCOTUS decision on Obamacare needs to be absolutely decisive to send the message that congress was WAAAAAAY out of bounds on this one. But I doubt it. Sotomayor and Kagan can be expected to take magnificent leaps in logic to torture the constitution until Obamacare fits. Not too confident about Souter and Ginsberg either. I remain hopeful that it comes down to the usual 5 to 4 split, with Obamacare losing.

It is worrisome, to say the least.

[Mrs. Don-o]

[Chaguito]

This pattern repeats itself in EVERY pivotal case before an appelate or supreme court. ALWAYS the first few days the suckers think the leftist judges are seeing the light. But it never pans out. Maybe this time Charlie Brown will kick the football, but history is not his friend.