Posted on 03/27/2012 4:36:28 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Well come on, the SG knows he has a dog of a case to argue. They know it is unconstitutional, how do you argue something you know is not constitutional, is, convincingly? They have no compelling arguments and they know their position is ridiculous.
The law will stand.
How do you get 4-4?
I’m very careful whenever experts claim than a certain judge will vote one way or another based upon perceived speculations.
Unless you’re in “John Malcovich’s Head”. ;)
I meant health insurance, not health care.
>>Would love this to be a 7-2 against Obamacare the way it was for Bush against Gore.
I stated this in a previous thread. I think either Sotomayor or Kagan will vote against it because Dems are BEGGING Obama to get this swept under the rug, or that Souter and Ginsberg will rule against.
I think the DNC realizes that if this baby is oked by SCOTUS, it will be 2010 all over again and they will lose the White House, federal, and state legislatures en masse.
Which of the justices claimed that "inactivity is an activity"? She had a point. Doing nothing is a choice not to do something.
yitbos
“It’s not about healthcare, it’s about control of the money stream and the people.”
Well, it’s about both. They—or the true believers, anyway (i.e. not the pathological liars)—honestly think “control of the money stream and the people” will give us better healthcare. Needless to say, they’re really, really wrong.
“She had a point. Doing nothing is a choice not to do something”
Whatever nothing is, it is not commerce.
I dunno, haven't been following the case. I just recalled being involved in the semantic argument that relies on "inactivity" as the distinguishing word, and recognized that sophistry can easily turn inactivity into activity, on anything, and probably do the reverse too.
So, I got to looking at the enumerated power stated in the constitution, which is "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." And I figured working inside that framework would be rhetorically simpler. So, if Congress has the power to regulate, does it have the power to compel? Is that a power the constitution grants? Make THAT the question the SCOTUS is answering.
Digging around some, I see I wasn't the first to come up with that formulation (didn't think I would be).
No kidding. I live in a supposedly conservative state that requires me to buy liability insurance for my car. I've never ever had a wreck. Why should the state force me to buy liability insurance?
As everyone knows it will come down to Kennedy. He gave each side just enough to keep them guessing.
IMHO its possible he will find the mandate unconstitutional under the commerce clause but its sure not anything I'd bet on.
I think the AIA arguments yesterday tipped the justices hand. If the whole thing was going to be overturned the losing side would have been pushing the AIA to delay things but both sides wanted it to go forward. Telling me at least, that the mandate may be overturned but the other parts of the statute will stand.
I do have health insurance, but I have not been to a doctor since 1986. I rarely get sick, though recently I hurt my back, then immediately proceeded to get bronchitis (really crappy couple of weeks), luckily back got better and I happened to have a full bottle of amoxicillin left over from a root canal, so I’m all good again.
I think you are right.
States have rights and can exercise powers above and beyond the few which are enumerated to the federal government (insurance mandates are not enumerated in the Constitution).
It is also likely that your state can't force you to by car insurance if you don't have a car or don't drive.
When Kagan did not recuse herself (as legally she should have), I assumed the “fix” was in.
Yes indeed, as Rush saiid, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
No kidding. I live in a supposedly conservative state that requires me to buy liability insurance for my car. I've never ever had a wreck. Why should the state force me to buy liability insurance?
That’s why such lawyers are paid enormous sums: to take the rediculous and make it a solid persuasive case. Johnny Cochoran comes to mind.
“When Kagan did not recuse herself (as legally she should have), I assumed the “fix” was in.”
She should have recused herself, but it may not matter.
But it only works if the lawyer himself believes the lie. This guy knows it’s not constitutional and it totally shows.
George Costanza - It isn’t a lie, if you believe it.
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.