Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Live Thread: SCOTUS hearings on Obamacare [Day 3 Arguments; Post 153+]
National Review ^ | 0/26/2012 | Avik Roy

Posted on 03/26/2012 8:11:01 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan

Edited on 03/26/2012 10:25:10 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 last
To: sickoflibs

BUMP


151 posted on 03/27/2012 7:44:35 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; alancarp; stephenjohnbanker; Gilbo_3
but it would have made more sense to have raised a tax that those uninsured (many are illegals) would be paying too like a sales tax.

A sales tax might do it, but of course that would be "regressive" and might have trouble passing in Maryland.

This cost in no way justifies Obama-care.

My view is that government programs usually waste more than they "save."

152 posted on 03/27/2012 8:58:05 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: All
DAY THREE: Oral Arguments on the Severability of the Individual Mandate from the Broader Obamacare Bill

I will post the relevant tweets from the same sources as yesterday.

Meanwhile: see this WSJ Article: Why Justice Kennedy left both sides of health case hopeful yesterday.

Note that this is counter to the deluge of reports from the Left Media yesterday, claiming that their sky was falling. I tend to agree with the WSJ - the MSM may have put up a smokescreen.

Also: This article from the WSJ explains the five basic things to know about this whole thing... so far.

153 posted on 03/28/2012 8:35:35 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Kennedy SAID this mandate would change the fundamental relationship between individuals and government, therefore, it would have to meet a very high standard to be upheld.

Kennedy might try to split the baby as was proposed in a Bible story...not actually done...and fiddle around with the final opinion rather than obliterating the entire law.

But what he SAID does not sound like he’s eager to cross that line which he articulated, which would fundamentally change America from what we have always been.

Your evidence that a couple of conservatives will want to jump onboard the bandwagon is...????????????


154 posted on 03/28/2012 8:39:26 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

Tweet references that follow have these sources/tags:
Janet Adamy (WSJ) @janetadamy #supremecourt @louiseradnofsky

First chunk of today’s arguments is on whether the whole law or just parts of it would go away if the court strikes down individual mandate.
Liberal justices went head-to-head with conservative judges Wednesday in effort to protect the health law.
Liberal justices arguing strongly to keep most of overhaul law even if court strikes the individual mandate.
Sotomayor was first to interrupt challengers’ lawyer Clement, who is arguing whole law should be invalidated.
Sotomayor: “Why shouldn’t we let Congress” decide what to do, she asked.
Sotomayor: “What’s wrong with leaving it in the hands of people” who should be taking this decision “not us?”
— Personal Comment: Talk about a statement that is ... I have no words: the LAST thing she would actually want is to have this in the hands of the people.

Clement responds that without the individual mandate, the health law would be a “hollowed-out shell.”
Conservative justices Scalia and Alito have seemed to endorse Clement’s case.
Scalia cites “legislative inertia” as a reason not to let Congress decide how much of the law to keep.
Alito says judges should consider that the legislation wouldn’t have passed without the individual mandate.
Ginsburg has sought to argue that the most legally conservative position is to uphold the law.
Ginsburg: If they must choose between wrecking operation and salvage job, salvage job is more conservative
Roberts has asked several questions of Mr. Clement that further the case for striking down the whole law.
Roberts has suggested that whole health law should be considered linked to the mandate.
Roberts: Law’s myriad other provisions, like black-lung payments, were included as sweeteners to pass bill.
Roberts: Without them, Congress “would not have been able to cobble together the votes to get it approved.”
Kennedy has asked broader questions about the precise test to determine what Congress intended.
Kagan has indicated that if the choice is between leaving half-a-loaf and no loaf, half-a-loaf wins.
—Personal Comment: If the choice is half an unconstitutional apple and a whole one, then they’re both bad.

Breyer aggressive in challenging Clement to say what he proposes the justices do to resolve fate of the law.
Breyer suggesting that his options include appointing a special master or going back to the district courts.
—Personal Comment: talk about activism...

Breyer prompts laughter when he calls expanded health services for Native Americans “the Indian thing”
—Personal Comment: (Most tribes are exempted from Obamacare because they already have a Government-run health care system).

Breyer: “Those [other provisions] have nothing to do with the [mandate] stuff...They can stand on their own”

Feeds now coming from WSJ’s Brent Kendall. Clement done, Justice Department lawyer Edwin Kneedler up next.


155 posted on 03/28/2012 8:40:43 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

[Justice Department defense - against severability]

WSJ’s Kendall: Kneedler says justices should reject the challengers’ “sweeping” proposition that whole law must be invalidated
Kneedler says most of the law’s provisions don’t even apply to the parties who challenged insurance mandate.
— Personal Comment: since the plaintiffs are 26 states, that’s a silly argument... the states are charged with implementing or enforcing a large chunk of the law, right?

Ginsburg says that if mandate falls, legislative branch should decide what should happen to the rest of law.
— Personal Comment: while I’m no lawyer, I gotta wonder if that’s a common position at all at the appellate levels.

Roberts asks if there will be new litigation on remaining parts of law if court leaves law place without mandate
— Personal Comment: certainly there will be (re: Catholic Church), but frankly that’s not something that should concern the Court.

Scalia suggests it would be better to invalidate the whole law and let Congress start from scratch.
— Personal Comment: I’m guessing Justice Scalia is getting tired of the Lib justices speaking their minds, and he opted to throw down that gauntlet.

Several justices express concern about harming insurers if mandate falls but the rest of the law stays in place
Swing vote Kennedy worries about imposing a “risk” on insurance companies “that Congress never intended.”


156 posted on 03/28/2012 8:50:30 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: alancarp
[continuing with the Justice Dept. lawyer Kneedler's arguments]

Scalia: "totally unrealistic" to expect SC to go through 2,700 pages of health law and decide what should remain
Kagan suggests court has no business trying to guess if Congress would/wouldn't have voted for other parts in law
-- Personal Comment: I gotta give her that one... so the right answer, then is to send the rest of it back to Congress and ask them to decide the fate of the rest of it, right? (snicker)

Roberts suggests Kneedler made effective case that if mandate falls, guarantee that insurers accept all customers must go, too...But, Roberts adds, that doesn't tell the court what to do with all the many other provisions of the law.

157 posted on 03/28/2012 9:00:33 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

Kinda sounding like a party-line vote on this one... again. If Kennedy is the swing guy, then he has to recognize - and he asked about it - that the mandate was critical to the law so that the healthy would not opt out... and therefore take ‘profitable’ people out of the national health system.

So without the mandate, the entire financial house of cards falls (okay, yeah, like I didn’t know it was all a crock of cooked numbers anyway). But certainly the votes would have been missing otherwise.


158 posted on 03/28/2012 9:13:05 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

[continuing with Justice Dept. lawyer Kneedler]
[source: twitter.com, WSJ’s Kendall, via @janetadamy, #supremecourt tag]

WSJ’s Kendall: Roberts asks what should happen to rest of the law if court strikes down the law’s expansion of Medicaid.
Kneedler says that if the court strikes down the Medicaid expansion, other provisions should remain in place.
Kennedy asks whether court has competence to decide in detail if certain provisions of the law should stay/fall
—Personal Comment: DING! (See also - bold comment from Scalia above)

Scalia suggests never has been SC case where justices struck down the heart of a law but left the rest in place.


159 posted on 03/28/2012 9:17:03 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: All

[continuing with Justice Dept. lawyer Kneedler]
[source: twitter.com, WSJ’s Brent Kendall, via @janetadamy, #supremecourt tag]

Kennedy says Kneedler suggests court has expertise to invalidate some of law but not to judge whether rest says in place
Kneedler finished, now on to lawyer H. Bartow Farr.

[I will have to depart shortly... will add new tweets on my return in a couple of hours unless someone else steps in and pinch-hits. Cheers]


160 posted on 03/28/2012 9:19:50 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: All

[Introducing new scum lawyer H. Bartow Farr - working for the Left...I guess that was a personal comment.]
[source: twitter.com, WSJ’s Brent Kendall, via @janetadamy, #supremecourt tag]

Farr argues all other provisions of law should remain in place even if insurance mandate found unconstitutional.
Ginsburg and Kagan say Congress itself said individual mandate, community rating and guaranteed issue were linked.


161 posted on 03/28/2012 9:25:30 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: alancarp
Several justices express concern about harming insurers if mandate falls but the rest of the law stays in place
Swing vote Kennedy worries about imposing a “risk” on insurance companies “that Congress never intended.”

I hope Kennedy is truly concerned about that, as we all should be. Invalidating the mandate while keeping the rest of the law is the worst case scenario, worse than leaving the whole law intact.

If insurers must still accept all preexisting conditions, and people are under no mandate to have insurance, then nothing stops people from dropping their insurance now (or not getting in the first place) and buying in only when they are hit with an expensive medical emergency.

Insurers cannot survive in that kind of model, and the road to single payer will become an expressway.

162 posted on 03/28/2012 10:11:44 AM PDT by Tatze (I reject your reality and substitute my own!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Tatze

>> “Invalidating the mandate while keeping the rest of the law is the worst case scenario, worse than leaving the whole law intact.” <<

.
Not so!

The mandate is 90% of what is wrong with Obamacare. As for the rest of it, we do not need “healthcare” nor ‘health’ insurance, and that is the big lesson that all the people need to grasp. Say good-bye to doctors and their poison drugs, and your health will improve, and so will the country.


163 posted on 03/28/2012 10:17:06 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: alancarp
[remaining tweets from the third day arguments, plus WSJ links.]
[source of tweets same as before]

Scalia notes there wouldn't be 60 Senate votes to break filibuster and repeal entire law if rest stayed on books.
Scalia said that after court ripped the heart (the mandate) from law he preferred to see the entire creation die.
(#supremecourt @JessBravin) Clement wraps by saying that without mandate, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act can accomplish neither

SCOTUS transcript and audio from this morning are up on this link (WSJ source)

SCOTUS now discussing whether the law's Medicaid expansion is constitutional. For updates, go to this WSJ link.

164 posted on 03/28/2012 11:44:32 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson