Skip to comments.Live Thread: SCOTUS hearings on Obamacare [Day 3 Arguments; Post 153+]
Posted on 03/26/2012 8:11:01 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexanEdited on 03/26/2012 10:25:10 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I will be live-blogging the Supreme Court hearings on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from March 26 to 28, beginning at 10 a.m. on Monday. I invite readers and NRO contributors to chip in with their observations. I will also incorporate Twitter feeds from various people from the health-care and legal worlds who are covering the case.
This is my first time running a live-blog, so my apologies if there are beginners technical glitches. See you in this space on Monday!
(Mods - National Review's above link takes you to the coveritlive site, which I used as the source link for the thread.)
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Listening to possible arguments on the radio and one good one was signing a contract under duress. If the government can force you buy something then you are not a willing partner to that contract. If upheld that would change contract law forever and who knows what else the government can tell us to buy....like a Volt! Or broccoli!
Lib whackos singing “We Shall Overcome” in front of SCOTUS, begging for Obamacare government slavery on CSPAN.
MLK would be APPALLED....
Is Kagan recusing or not?
Is Kagan recusing or not?
Oh hell no...
Insignificant things like ETHICS, or morality no longer apply to DEMOCRATS. Haven’t you realized that by now?
SCOTUS ping list:
Please post a link to any site you encounter that has good coverage of the oral arguments. It is my understanding that the Court will also release recordings of the arguments very soon after today’s hearing is finished. That would be prior to any official transcripts produced by the court reporter(s).
If it is a tax and not a penalty, the case can't be before the court until the taxes are paid, which would he 2014. Well after the election.
Punt that ball.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison, the Father of the United State Constitution
So, if Congress passed a bill stating that Tea Party members would be rounded up and put in camps in 2014, and the camps were being built in the meantime, the USSC couldn’t rule on that bill’s constitutionality?
Well, the government forcing you to buy something is a violation of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
My daughter rightfully pointed out that mandating a person buy something is akin to having to pay a fee in order to be alive. IOW, if you breath air, you must buy government health insurance.
How is this different than slavery?
The restriction comes when there is a tax in play. There's a law that says that a tax in question can only be appealed after it is paid, seeking a refund.
So a better example would be if a Tea Party member was being fined for being in the Tea Party, with the fine being redefined as a tax. It's still ridiculous, but in that case, yes, the law would be punted down the line until someone was actually taxed under it.
Lord, hear our prayers.
Under federal law28 U.S.C. 455any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned.The law further states that any justice
shall also disqualify himself [w]here he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.And our congressional leaders should be beating that drum.
Amen. Thanks for sharing that.
That’s a thoughtful argument. The potential impact upon contract law is a serious one.