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.
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]
Both those arguments are incrediblely weak, imo. Ginsburg’s especially can be applied to any market. Breyer’s to food and water. Everyone must consume both.also, those arguments they are making could also be used to expand government into licensing to have children and mandated abortions, imo. Afterall, the birth of a human being affects the healthcare market.