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 ...
Kennedy’s comment about compelling people to enter into commerce in order to regulate commerce was funny.
Ok...so the decision is 4-4. NOW what?
“As others have suggested the Individual Mandate was always a throwaway to get the heavy taxes inside the bill enacted”
That is absolutely wrong. The mandate was necessary for preexisting condition coverage, which was Obamacare’s biggest selling point. Well, that and pipe dream of cutting costs, but who believed that whopper, really? I mean, aside from those of u expecting it to come through rationing, á la death panels.
I’m not saying they won’t take the remainder of the bill if they can get it. However, the mandate is the card table upon which the Obamacare house of cards rests. It was the crucial next step on the road to socialization. Without it, we will be going ‘round and ‘round the same rutt we’ve been in since ‘94.
rutt = rut
That may be the worst of the outcomes. Because the Fedgov will then step in and set up socialized medicine to fix the crisis.
5 to 4 striking down Obamacare.
I listened to the audio and read the transcript. Clement was absolutely superb. I am really glad he is on our side. Clement was head and shoulders above the other two.
Neither do I, the SCOTUS always has been a political body, otherwise murdering the unborn would still be illegal. I think they will side in favor of the fascist in chief, I will be very surprised if they don’t.
“Do nothing until it becomes a crisis”
Only saps wait until a problem arises on its own. In the case of healthcare, the gubmint’s beenn guided by the all-powerful Do Something forever. There hasn’t been afree market in that industry since the wage and price controls of WWII tied coverage to employment, if not before.
Step 1 by right ought to be “Muck things up by sticking your nose in where it doesn’t belong.”
I was thinking about this today. They're claiming that EVERYONE is in the market. I disagree. I've known people that have never, ever been to a doctor. Born healthy, deal with it if they're sick, and have had zero time in the "market". This mandate, if upheld is decidedly an infringement upon their freedom FROM the medical market or the medical insurance market.
Think Amish.
Indeed...
That's insane. Without the individual mandate, Obamacare collapses like a house of cards. It becomes financially unsustainable. It is the linchpin of the entire bill.
I agree. Sad when you think about people laughing at the defense’s arguments and still are ready to vote in favor of it.
“There is no temporal limitation in the Commerce Clause. Everyone subject to this regulation is in or will be in the health care market. They are just being regulated in advance.”
What’s most objectionable about this train of thought is not only what you embolden. It’s also the failure to distinguish between the specific market the mandate covers: insurance, and everything else that falls within “the health care market.” I’ll grant that everyone will need healthcare at some point. I’m not very willing to admit everyone will paticipate in what we normally consider to be the healthcare market. If you live in the Ozarks—not to stereotype—perhaps you have cousin Tammy set your broken leg. Tammy’s actions will be economic, in a sense, though won’t in any way count as such to whoever’s measuring the healthcare industry nationwide.
Okay, fine, let’s say everyone will enter the healthcare market as commonly understood. Does it follow that everyone will at some point purchase health insurance? Hell no. They can always pay out of pocket, as ruthlessly gouged as they may be. This lawyer fails to notice that buying healthcare and buying iunsurance are not the same thing. Just because both can be categorized under the heading “healthcare” does not mean you can regulate one as if it’s the other.
And, yes, there is a temporal limitation to the commerce clause. You cannot regulate that which does not yet exist. It would lead to a rip in the space-time continuum, or something.
Basically if you don’t buy something, you are not engaged in commerce, therefore there is nothing you’ve done to come under government regulation via the commerce clause. No commerce has commenced.
Another way to look at it, is in NOT buying something can be regulated under the commerce clause, then there is absolutely nothing that doesn’t fall under the commerce clause for govt regulation. If you buy something or if you don’t, it’s all the same, and all your decisions can be regulated and mandated by govt.
If the court deems it constitutional it’s time to part ways with King George again.
Can some help me on my open thoughts on something? Does my train of logic make sense?
Get as many people on state run co-ops (medicare essentially), where the reimbursement rates are poor. Doctors/hospitals will have to make up the difference by charging more on private plans.
Obamacare uses taxes and regulations on private insurance which will up their rates forcing citizens/companies to drop their private coverage.
Tempt/coerce citizens and employees (with fines lower than their current insurance rates) to dump private plans and go to state “lower costing” co-ops which will make private health plans raise their rates and go out of business.
Gov’t becomes the only player in town.
It’s not about healthcare, it’s about control of the money stream and the people.
Game over.
One of the petitioning lawyers made the statement that failure to buy health insurance does not adversely affect commerce-but defaulting on health care bills is the problem.
Not sure what impact that made, but it really puts this law in proper perspective. The government is trying to solve a problem in one market by requiring participation in another, related market.
The problem is they assume every single person needs health care in order to pay for medical bills. Simply not true. There are also groups of people that do not go to hospitals when ill.
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.