Posted on 03/27/2012 4:36:28 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
It’s going to be 6-4 against with the zombie Ginsburg joining the majority.
If previous cases are a clue, most of the conservative justices will do a heavy analysis on the “consensus arguments”, as you would expect. But Justice Thomas opinion is going to be the one that “rings chimes”.
Thomas writes opinions with the expectation that others will deal with the obvious. So instead he writes theses that will impress legal scholars and make the law books, pointing out deep and abiding constitutional arguments that can stand on their own, independent of the consensus arguments.
For example, in McDonald v. Chicago, while all the focus was on arguments surrounding the 2nd Amendment, Thomas hit a huge home run with a 100 page opinion about a clause in the 14th Amendment. The “privileges or immunities” clause was actually closer to the mark of the case than was even the 2nd Amendment. However, over time it had become moribund and neglected.
With Thomas’ concurring opinion, he effectively rewrote the 2nd Amendment arguments, and revitalized the clause to be a major part of American civil rights.
He may practically write a law book for his opinion on Obamacare. He is no slouch, and deserves his reputation as one of the top jurists to ever sit on the court.
>> “When Kagan did not recuse herself (as legally she should have)...” <<
.
She has set herself up for a very valid impeachment by doing this. This was a huge violation of judicial standards.
.
VEry good point. Anthony Kennedy’s ruling will get the attention in the short term, but Thomas will no doubt have fascinating this to say.
I really look forward to the overturning of this mostrosity.
Carvin [the other attorney] ain’t too shabby either. Between the two of them [Carvin and Clement], they make a good tag-team ...
Here is an exchange between Carvin and Sotomayor:
*****
MR. CARVIN: No, no, no. I was — they create this strawman that says: Look, the only alternative to doing it the way we’ve done it, if we condition access to health care on buying health insurance, the only way you can enforce that is making sick people not get care. I’m saying no, no.
There’s a perfectly legitimate way they could enforce their alternative, i.e., requiring you to buy health insurance when you access health care, which is the same penalty structure that’s in the Act.
There is no moral dilemma between having people have insurance and denying them emergency service. Congress has made a perfectly legitimate value judgment that they want to make sure that people get emergency care. Since the founding, whenever Congress has imposed that public responsibility on private actors, it has subsidized it from the Federal Treasury. It has not conscripted a subset of the citizenry and made them subsidize the actors who are being hurt, which is what they’re doing here.
They’re making young, healthy people subsidize insurance premiums for the cost that the nondiscrimination provisions have put on insurance premiums and insurance companies.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So the -
MR. CARVIN: And that is the fundamental problem here.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So the — I — I want to understand the choices you’re saying Congress has. 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 -
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Okay.
MR. CARVIN: I would accept that.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Congress can — are you taking the same position as your colleague, Congress can’t say we’re going to set up a public health system, but you can get a tax credit if you have private health insurance because you won’t access the public system. Are you taking the same position as your colleague?
MR. CARVIN: There may have been some confusion in your prior colloquy. I fully agree with my brother Clement that a direct tax would be unconstitutional. I 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 -
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So how is this different than this Act, which says if a taxpayer fails to meet the requirement of having minimum coverage, then they are responsible for paying the shared responsibility payment?
MR. CARVIN: The difference is that the taxpayer is not given a choice ...
No, the goal is to make the audience believe the lie. Salesmen and charlatans and politicians of all stripes know this. It’s not a matter of believing, it’s a matter of knowing how to persuade others to believe.
Without the mandate? The central focal point? That’s gonna being interesting to see how the bill goes on without it and survive.
If they can mandate healthcare, what next? Mandatory 401ks? Mandatory retirement facility care? Mandatory Chevy Volts?
At one point justice 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....
Why should the state force me to buy liability insurance?
____________________________________________________________
I really can’t believe you asked that question because I know you are NOT stupid. But, to answer it: Two Reasons:
#1. 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!!!
What I am praying for is not only for Obamacare to be overturned, but for Thomas to write such a devastating constitutional argument against the entire idea that it will be effectively impossible to implement another such scheme for a hundred years.
No one will believe you if you yourself don’t buy what you’re shoveling. This guy couldn’t convince anyone what he was trying to peddle because even he doesn’t believe his own sales pitch.
“What I am praying for is not only for Obamacare to be overturned, but for Thomas to write such a devastating constitutional argument against the entire idea that it will be effectively impossible to implement another such scheme for a hundred years.”
That would be spectacular. Also, don’t rule out Paul Clement joining Thomas on the Court if Obama is defeated for reelection.
Hope I'm wrong.
I’m not”in the market.” - I don’t carry health insurance, and I don’t go to doctors unless it is necessary for a work related physical exam, so I don’t get sick.
I don’t take drugs or vaccines; I eat real food (only stuff that was once alive itself) and that is all it takes to stay healthy. We do not need “healthcare” and doctors and drugs do not bring about healing; they only attempt to keep you breathing long enough to make a fortune off of tinkering with your health.
>> “ I’ll grant that everyone will need healthcare at some point” <<
.
Then you’re granting something that is not in evidence, and is definitely not true.
Stay clear of doctors, drugs, sugar and most seed oils, and you’ll do just fine.
>> “It’s not about healthcare, it’s about control of the money stream and the people.” <<
.
As usual!
Your points in 35 are excellent. This ‘law’ was never properly passed. Why do republicans don’t challenge the process is beyond me.
Oh, never mind - I just remembered. The first priority of all congressmen (R+D) is get to reelected. (and if you play nice on capital hill, the other party promises to not fund any campaigns against you.)
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.