Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wow: SCOTUS Leaning Toward Throwing Out Obamacare In Its Entirety?
Townhall.com ^ | 3/28/2012 | Guy Benson

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 doesn’t 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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: initsentirety; obamacare; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last

1 posted on 03/28/2012 10:40:42 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross
Quick Takes on Severability From Inside the Courtroom
2 posted on 03/28/2012 10:41:49 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

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.


3 posted on 03/28/2012 10:47:23 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather ("We Need To Teach The Establishment a Lesson" - Newt Gingrich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

I like the term:

OBAMAWRECK


4 posted on 03/28/2012 10:47:32 AM PDT by woofie (It takes three villages and a forest of woodland creatures to raise a child in Obamaville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

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.


5 posted on 03/28/2012 10:48:39 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets ("Jihad" is Arabic for "Helter-Skelter", "bin Laden" is Arabic for "Manson".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

LOL! Garbage in..garbage out.


6 posted on 03/28/2012 10:52:08 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather ("We Need To Teach The Establishment a Lesson" - Newt Gingrich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

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?


7 posted on 03/28/2012 10:52:14 AM PDT by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

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.


8 posted on 03/28/2012 10:52:33 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross
Obamacare was crafted with string and chewing gum.

If an intern presented a sumamry to a Justice written like this his next assignment would be cleaning out the SCOTUS head.

9 posted on 03/28/2012 10:54:47 AM PDT by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl

I heard they rule on this in June some time.


10 posted on 03/28/2012 10:55:10 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather ("We Need To Teach The Establishment a Lesson" - Newt Gingrich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

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.


11 posted on 03/28/2012 10:55:32 AM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl

The ruling comes in June.


12 posted on 03/28/2012 10:55:39 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

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.


13 posted on 03/28/2012 10:55:50 AM PDT by ScottinVA (A single drop of American blood for muslims is one drop too many!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

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
http://www.jeffhead.com/obama-time.htm

America at the Crossroads of History
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm


14 posted on 03/28/2012 10:56:21 AM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free, never has been, never will be (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl

“When will the ruling come down?”

My understanding is June from what i have read


15 posted on 03/28/2012 10:56:26 AM PDT by BubbaJunebug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

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.


16 posted on 03/28/2012 10:56:34 AM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross
The hubris of NOT putting in a severability clause is astonishing... and laughable.

I still don't believe a word that comes out of any reporter's mouth. We could easily be Mahili’d.

17 posted on 03/28/2012 10:57:24 AM PDT by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

“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.”

Very nicely put, hat tip.


18 posted on 03/28/2012 10:58:32 AM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

Well, congress didn’t read the bill, why should SCOTUS?


19 posted on 03/28/2012 10:58:40 AM PDT by HerrBlucher (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross
My understanding is that the bill failed to include a severability clause. Any part found unconstitutional invalidates the whole thing. The individual mandate is likely to be found unconstitutional. That should toss the whole thing. Make the corrupt politicians write short, concise bills that aren't loaded with tons of trash that gets crammed down our throats because it is beyond the comprehension and time of the elected officials to vet before voting.
20 posted on 03/28/2012 10:58:40 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

i’ll beleive it when i read the decision


21 posted on 03/28/2012 11:01:53 AM PDT by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

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.


22 posted on 03/28/2012 11:02:04 AM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

The Justices to Pelosi... WE WON’t EVEN READ IT!


23 posted on 03/28/2012 11:02:50 AM PDT by Republic Rocker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: woofie; All
Go to the bottom of this townhall.com link ...

UPDATE II - The RNC has released a new web ad. It is painful. Almost mean-spirited: LOL!

24 posted on 03/28/2012 11:04:07 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

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.


25 posted on 03/28/2012 11:06:07 AM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross
[tinfoilhaton] This entire production is going exactly as Obama and his handlers have planned. 'Obamacare' was intended to fail constitutional muster. Having the supreme court declare it unconstitutional because it requires citizens to purchase a product from a private corporation is exactly what they want.

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]

26 posted on 03/28/2012 11:08:18 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albionin

Even action is subject to the Iron Law of Unintended Consequences. None more so than the rubegoldbergesque ObamaCare.


27 posted on 03/28/2012 11:08:57 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets ("Jihad" is Arabic for "Helter-Skelter", "bin Laden" is Arabic for "Manson".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Hoosier-Daddy

The insurance lobby probably would not allow them to keep the severability clause. It was in there but it was removed before passage.


28 posted on 03/28/2012 11:09:00 AM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: camle

I am praying for our Country, and for those Justices who have believed in the Constitution.


29 posted on 03/28/2012 11:10:36 AM PDT by oldtimer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: camle

I am praying for our Country, and for those Justices who have believed in the Constitution.


30 posted on 03/28/2012 11:10:48 AM PDT by oldtimer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
CORRECTION: "The supreme court has not and will not rule that requiring people to participate in a federal program is not unconstitutional."
31 posted on 03/28/2012 11:10:51 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

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.


32 posted on 03/28/2012 11:12:08 AM PDT by Williams (Honey Badger Don't Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

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.


33 posted on 03/28/2012 11:19:07 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Steampunk- Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

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.


34 posted on 03/28/2012 11:20:44 AM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Nevertheless if you listen to what Libsburg is saying vs. Kennedy vs. Scalia, there seems to be an identifiable difference in perspective.


35 posted on 03/28/2012 11:21:54 AM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
Hadn't quite dawned on me that the importance of a severability clause is that short of inclusion thereof no court would be inclined to paw thru TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED PAGES - and remember that's just the differential summary applied to existing law - to work out exactly what should stay vs. go.

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.

36 posted on 03/28/2012 11:22:34 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
Is is possible the court would return the law to Congress and give them a deadline by which they had to rewrite it
Given that the house is no longer Nancy's they good just rewrite it to say: Ya'll take care of yourselves now, you hear. Would work for me.
37 posted on 03/28/2012 11:25:07 AM PDT by dblshot (Insanity: electing the same people over and over and expecting different results.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

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 they’re 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 person’s refusal to buy health insurance is actually a choice to pass on potential health-care costs, and “they’re 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.


38 posted on 03/28/2012 11:27:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

That’s why I’m not getting all excited about this. When they make their ruling, then we’ll know for sure.


39 posted on 03/28/2012 11:28:31 AM PDT by Sister_T (Mr. Newt destroys the narrative that conservatives are stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

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


40 posted on 03/28/2012 11:29:06 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Republic Rocker

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.”


41 posted on 03/28/2012 11:29:06 AM PDT by JaguarXKE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

If you post Kate Hicks’ full report later..kindly ping me..thanks


42 posted on 03/28/2012 11:29:26 AM PDT by ken5050 (The ONLY reason to support Mitt: The Mormon Tabernacle Choir will appear at the WH each Christmas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams
It’s possible for Kennedy to preserve the mandate because he knows otherwise he must strike the whole law.

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."

43 posted on 03/28/2012 11:29:26 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
The insurance lobby probably would not allow them to keep the severability clause. It was in there but it was removed before passage.

Absolutely! They aren't swallowing the crap sandwich unless 50 million new customers at gunpoint come along with it. If SCOTUS returns a split decision look for this lobby to turn on Obama and become his worst nightmare.
44 posted on 03/28/2012 11:31:13 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

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?


45 posted on 03/28/2012 11:34:08 AM PDT by alloysteel (College "education" may be the worst mischief to be inflicted upon the next generation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
So, no reason to celebrate yet.... it could go the other way.

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]

46 posted on 03/28/2012 11:37:20 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Paul Clement did an excellent job. Just brilliant.


47 posted on 03/28/2012 11:37:48 AM PDT by novemberslady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BubbaJunebug

Why so long?


48 posted on 03/28/2012 11:41:54 AM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: novemberslady

In comparison,Paul Clement made the Solicitor General look like even MORE of a babbling idiot.


49 posted on 03/28/2012 11:45:29 AM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
unveiling of the next Obamacare mandate - the one which requires everybody to purchase health insurance from the federal government

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.

50 posted on 03/28/2012 11:52:22 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson