Posted on 03/27/2012 4:36:28 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Paul Clement has been receiving rave reviews for his performance during the second day of oral arguments over health-care reform before the Supreme Court. (“[T]he best argument I’ve ever heard,” SCOTUSblog Tom Goldstein raved on Twitter). But Clement’s finest moment may have come when he was completely silent.
A little more than two minutes into Solicitor General Donald Verilli’s turn at the bar, Justice Anthony Kennedy interrupted him: “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?”
Kennedy’s query was an almost verbatim recital of Clement’s own talking point, part of the fundamental argument he has made against the individual mandate. In his brief to the Court, and later during his oral argument, he said Obama’s health-care law “represents an unprecedented effort by Congress to compel individuals to enter commerce in order to better regulate commerce.”
It’s a recasting of the original argument used by opponents of the mandate: that Congress has overstepped its constitutional authority by regulating inactivity rather than activity.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Seen through that lens, Clement has to be feeling pretty good about his experience at the Court earlier today. While he faced tough, bordering-on-hostile questions from the four liberal justices — most notably from Justice Steven Breyer, who seemed to be lecturing more than asking — the two justices who seem most open to persuasion by either side, Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts, were far tougher on Verilli. And when they did have questions for Clement, he handled them with aplomb.
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
First Dictator Baby-Doc Barack dictates that we must “Eat your peas!”
And now this: “ - - - You must buy broccoli! “
When, oh when does it stop!
There is so much to do!
As for me, I’m still trying to find my “marchin’ shoes!”
Living under the jack-boot heel of a Marxist Dictatorship managed by the arrogant Obamanator is a very high price to pay for all of the promised glory of the hopee-changee of OBAMANATION !
BTW, did you just hear an Obamadrone flying overhead?
(”Oh, the humanity - - -” )
Remember when Obama dissed Roberts during the State of the Union speech? I don’t think deference will matter any more.
by the “regulated in advance” argument,,,
citizens will eventually die.
dying requires medical care.
medical care costs everyone money.
money must be saved.
young people don’t spend money to die.
old peole spend money and then die.
therefore
to save money we must impose a life span age limit.
ps Obama loves you.
IOW a duty to die.
I vant to zee your heasth care paepers pleaze.
vher are your papers?
ve are here to inzpect your kitchen for contraband food.
based on passed history, Sotomayor probably has written her opinion already and it is just a matter of whether it will be a majority or a minority designation. Kagan will probably just “join in”.
ginsberg will write her own opinion.
that also includes the power to limit/eliminate the courts.
do you think the USSC wants to allow that?
By your logic, the SC doesn’t need the constitution; are you one of those?
The SC is not a legislative body, so yes they do need a severability clause to guide what is severable, unless they set out to legislate. The originalists of the court do not do that.
Most of the ‘conservative’ justices have been heavily involved in pulling the levers of power for a long time. They are not just ‘lawyers’ that got Peter Principled into the SCOTUS. They are privy to vast amounts of information that is not readily available to the average person.
BTW, what has math to do with medicine? Did you mean engineering?
>> Then how can you describe those cases as ones in which “we lost his vote”? <<
.
Obviously you’re still NOT thinking; the times Kennedy has broken with the four conservatives have been on “gay rights” type issues where he saw the conservative position as a government intrusion into individual rights.
“Congress can tax everybody and set up a public health care system.
MR. CARVIN: Yes.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That would be okay?
MR. CARVIN: Yes. Tax power is -”
This sort of argument enrages me. let’s say the feds have the power to raise taxes however they wan; they don’t, but for argument’s sake let’s say. Does that mean they can spend the revenue any which way they choose? No, they still have to spend it according to constitutionally delegated powers. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to establish a national public healthcare system. Nor, so far as I remember, is it authorized to subsidize the states or private companies to do so.
I fully understand that the power to subsidize is the power to regulate. And if it could constitutionally subsidize healthcare, the federal government would be within its prerogatives to mandate free emergency care, or whatever else it wanted. That is, without violating another part of the Constitution.
Whence, then, derives this power to subsidize? Who got it in their head that the feds can spend however they want revenue from taxes legally levied? Taxing power implies nothing other than the power to tax.
“don’t think he means to suggest, nor do I, that a tax credit that incentivizes you to buy insurance creates a problem. Congress incentivizes all kinds of activities. If they gave us a tax credit for buying insurance, then it would be our choice whether or not that makes economic sense, even though”
On this count, he’s right. Congress can manipulate the tax code so as to incentivize as it sees fit, so long as the tax is legal. Though I am sick and bloody tired of using the tax code for social engineering.
“Alito said something to the effect of why didn’t the Congress just mandate the cost of uncompensated care just be paid for with taxes”
Where do they get the power to do that? Silly question, I know, since they pay for whatever hell they want without concern for what they’re empowered to do. But someone, at least, ought to be asking.
“Accidents happen....HELLO..... You are not infallible or perfect; you possibly could have an accident.
#2. When it’s your fault why should the other guy pay when he’s driving safely and minding his own business; and you come along and destroy his “property” and possibly injure or kill one of his kids? He’s stuck, not only with grief but, hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills.....BECAUSE OF YOU!!!”
To play devil’s advocate, I don’t believe the previous poster said the other guy should pay. What’s to stop the wronged party from taking the transgressor to court, just like with every other civil matter. Why can’t a driver risk having to pay damages out of pocket instead of being forced to pay insurance premiums he might never cash in? I realize it wouldn’t be prudent, and almost everyone who chose to forego insurance would live to regret it. But I do tire of efforts to legislate against foolheardiness.
“Then you’re granting something that is not in evidence, and is definitely not true.”
I know it’s not true. Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with granting premises for the sake of argument. I was trying to make the point that even if everyone needs healthcare at some point (which isn’t true), they don’t need an insurance policy to pay for it.
He is a man of integrity. He was supposed to represent the House in the Defense of Marriage Act. The law firm he was with objected because of objections by other clients. He walked out the same day.
“Kennedy is a libertarian”
Ha. I wish.
“Question: Would a ‘single payer’ health insurance system be constitutional if passed by congress”
No. Nothing in the Constitution empowers Congress to do such a thing. Granted, they are not empowered to do most of what they do. The only reason Obamacare, unlike the rest of Congresses illegal laws, is in danger of being struck down is that the mandate is so painfully obviously unconstitutional that it smacks you in the face and makes you pay attention to that dusty old document.
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.