Skip to comments.Wow: SCOTUS Leaning Toward Throwing Out Obamacare In Its Entirety?
Posted on 03/28/2012 10:40:30 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
My colleague Kate Hicks -- who has attended the High Court's oral arguments this week -- will file a full report on today's proceedings later on. In the meantime, some initial reactions indicate that the Supremes may be poised to not only throw out Obamacare's individual mandate, but the entire thing. Wow. Snippets the Wall Street Journal's excellent live blog:
* Justice Kennedy, again exploring the competency theme, says Mr. Kneedler suggests the court has the expertise to invalidate some parts of the law, but not the expertise to judge whether other parts should remain in place. The justice says he finds that "odd."
* Justice Scalia suggests there has never been another high court case where the justices have struck down the heart of a law, but left the rest of it in place.
* Chief Justice Roberts suggests that Mr. Kneedler, the government lawyer, has made effectively made the case that if the insurance mandate falls, the guarantee that insurers accept all customers must go, too. But, the chief says, that doesnt tell the court what to do with all the many other provisions of the law.
* Justice Alito echoes those concerns, saying other provisions in the law, in addition to the guaranteed-coverage requirement, could lead to higher costs for insurers.
CNN's Jeffrey Toobin says Justice Kennedy led this aggressive questioning, indicating that Kennedy has made up his mind that at least the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Via CNN tweets:
Toobin: "The leader of the questioning was Kennedy; it certainly seemed likely he made up his mind the mandate was unconstitutional."
CNN JUST IN: Jeffrey Toobin: "this entire law is in trouble..." the individual mandate appears "doomed"..."seemed a foregone conclusion."
Toobin reiterated his "train wreck" imagery, adding that today could have also been a "plane wreck" ...
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Rush Limbaugh just said the justices are not going to read all 2700 pages and determine what to leave in or take out. It will either all pass or all fail.
I like the term:
Pelosi was right. We had to pass the law to see what’s in it. What was in it was an exploding dye pack of merde that is about to blow up in the Democrats collective face.
LOL! Garbage in..garbage out.
Rush said Scalia asked, “You really expect us to read the entire 2700 page law!”. Lol! Of course, not Justice Kennedy, nobody else did!
When will the ruling come down?
As usual, it all rests on Kennedy. If he votes to shoot it down, that frees the Dems to vote as they think best. But they will certainly vote in Obamacare’s favor, especially on the severability issue, if Kennedy does.
The fact that they are all asking questions may be serious, or it may just be political cover. They wouldn’t want to destroy the country unless they appeared to examine all the issues very carefully.
If an intern presented a sumamry to a Justice written like this his next assignment would be cleaning out the SCOTUS head.
I heard they rule on this in June some time.
That would be wonderful. I conjure the Democrats would be happy if the individual mandate was struck down but the rest maintained. That would end private insurance as people would wait till they got sick to purchase health insurance. That has been the goal all along in my opinion.
The ruling comes in June.
Don`t. Be. Fooled!
The comments and questions from SCOTUS justices should never be taken as a harbinger of their final rulings. They`re playing devil`s advocate by design. Remember, four of them are locked down for 0bama. Our side is the dicier one by far.
Do it. Kill the whole thing. It needs to be shot in the head...a double tap to ObamaCare.
His signature act...thrown out as unconstitutional before he finished his first (and, hopefully, only) term. Fitting, and representative of almost everything he has done.
The Man Who Despise America
America at the Crossroads of History
“When will the ruling come down?”
My understanding is June from what i have read
And why should they, right?
The dems didn’t read their own bill.
Typical libs....rely on others to do the work they refuse to do.
I still don't believe a word that comes out of any reporter's mouth. We could easily be Mahili’d.
“Pelosi was right. We had to pass the law to see whats in it. What was in it was an exploding dye pack of merde that is about to blow up in the Democrats collective face.”
Very nicely put, hat tip.
Well, congress didn’t read the bill, why should SCOTUS?
i’ll beleive it when i read the decision
Will somebody please take Bo the dog into protective custody? Right about now Obama is stalking around looking for something or someone to kick. It shouldn’t be the innocent dog.
The Justices to Pelosi... WE WON’t EVEN READ IT!
Is is possible the court would return the law to Congress and give them a deadline by which they had to rewrite it to take out the parts they found objectionable? That would seem to be the middle ground between throwing it all out or keeping it all, and the courts certainly shouldn’t be taking on the role of rewriting it. I think I’ve heard of stuff like that happening in lower courts.
That is because the intent all along has been to drive this country toward a nationwide, single payer, federal government operated and controlled, health 'insurance' and health 'care' system. The supreme court has not and will not rule that requiring people to participate in a federal program is not unconstitutional. If they were to to that, then social security, medicaid, medicare, etc. would ALL go out the window.
The Obama administration NEEDS the current Obamacare mandate to be ruled unconstitutional in order to open the door for the to unveiling of the next Obamacare mandate - the one which requires everybody to purchase health insurance from the federal government - the one which WON'T be ruled unconstitutional by our dysfunctional supreme court...[tinfoilhatoff]
Even action is subject to the Iron Law of Unintended Consequences. None more so than the rubegoldbergesque ObamaCare.
The insurance lobby probably would not allow them to keep the severability clause. It was in there but it was removed before passage.
I am praying for our Country, and for those Justices who have believed in the Constitution.
I am praying for our Country, and for those Justices who have believed in the Constitution.
Do NOT rely on Toobin he is an idiot. This argument is only about severability. It makes sense to frame questions as if the mandate will be struck down.
It’s possible for Kennedy to preserve the mandate because he knows otherwise he must strike the whole law.
Just saying. You have to wonder what a fool like Toobin thought conservative justices would ask during quetioning.
Article 1 Section 8 is a short list. Providing Universal healthcare, or forcing us to buy a government run health care policy, is WELL outside the scope of authorized power.
Will Bambi throw the SCOTUS in jail for disobeying him?
Crazy things have happened in this country since he started taking showers in the White Hut.
Nevertheless if you listen to what Libsburg is saying vs. Kennedy vs. Scalia, there seems to be an identifiable difference in perspective.
No, Ms. Pelosi, if you haven't read it before passing it, the court won't read it before rejecting it.
Crazy thing is, I wouldn't be surprised if Thomas does, in fact, read the whole thing and write a masterpiece dissecting it. He won't want to just dispose of the case, he'll want to ensure it never comes back in any form.
That the decision will be 5-4 for or against the individual mandate looks like a sure thing.
But it’s too soon to be optimistic.
Much has been written about Kennedy and the conservative side of the court.
However, from the liberal side, Justice Stephen Breyer appeared to see the mandate and the market from a completely different point of view. Breyer at one point suggested that everyone automatically becomes a participant in the heatlh-care market as soon as theyre born. Because no human being can escape illness, Breyer said, everyone will at some point require medical services; this includes those who cannot pay or those who lack insurance.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who embraced the same vision of the health-care market, argued that a persons refusal to buy health insurance is actually a choice to pass on potential health-care costs, and theyre making the rest of us pay for it. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan appeared on board with their fellow Democratic appointees.
Kennedy in particular seemed to soften near the end of the hearing, acknowledging the problem of the millions who are uninsured and pondering out loud about how the government could address that.
So, no reason to celebrate yet.... it could go the other way.
That’s why I’m not getting all excited about this. When they make their ruling, then we’ll know for sure.
So the ability of the Libs to save any of this may be sunk by Pelosi’s tactic of hiding the details inside 2700 pages of garbage.
Irony: The Mark of Quality Literature
I’d love to hear Scalia, for example, say “We had to strike down the law before we could read it to know what’s in it.”
If you post Kate Hicks’ full report later..kindly ping me..thanks
Maybe that will wake him to the fact that if the whole thing must be struck because by lacking the severability clause the only alternative is minute analysis of TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED PAGES, that means that to preserve the mandate means likewise minute analysis of TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED PAGES to ensure the mandate as implemented is, in fact, constitutional.
Would make for an amusing concurring dissent: "I would like to preserve the law as written, but it is so friggin' huge that no sane court could possibly tell if it adheres to superior law and precedent. Obamacare is overturned for reason of sheer incomprehensibility."
All this depends upon the mercurical thinking of Justice Kennedy. We still don’t know how he might rule, he himself may not know, or even have his thoughts sufficiently organized to make up his mind.
In any instance, we shall not know until perhaps June, when the final opinion is handed down.
There is always the tactic of resorting to silent boycott and intransigent responses to any application of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” should the provisions be held, if not Constitutional in the original sense of the term, at not not entirely incompatible with some loose interpretations under the interstate commerce clause.
But wait a minute here - a possible opportunity just passed. The belief is, that the penalties imposed under the provisions of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” are a tax, and therefore cannot be contested until they actually apply. But there is the other interpretation, that these penalties are NOT a tax, but rather like payment of a fine, as for a traffic ticket. Nobody, even in the wildest of interpretations, would term such a fine as a “tax”.
So why does the analogy not apply here?
Massive resistance by NOT paying the imposed penalties. Let them try to collect. Is it still a “tax” then?
Certainly. It is conventional SCOTUS wisdom to say that the oral arguments mean nothing and can often be nothing more than "Kabuki Theatre".
Even if that is true, I am loving this performance! [and it sure beats the alternative]
Paul Clement did an excellent job. Just brilliant.
Why so long?
In comparison,Paul Clement made the Solicitor General look like even MORE of a babbling idiot.
He'll need the Dems to control both houses of Congress to do that. I don't see the House of Reps going back to the Dems in November.
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.