Skip to comments.Court takes health care case behind closed doors
Posted on 03/29/2012 8:13:18 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The survival of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul rests with a Supreme Court seemingly split over ideology and, more particularly, in the hands of two Republican-appointed justices.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy put tough questions to administration lawyers defending the health care law during three days of arguments that suggested they have strong reservations about the individual insurance requirement at the heart of the overhaul and, indeed, whether the rest of the massive law can survive if that linchpin fails.
But Roberts and Kennedy also asked enough pointed questions of the law's challengers to give the overhaul's supporters some hope. In any event, justices' questions at arguments do not always foretell their positions.
The court's decision, due in June, will affect the way virtually every American receives and pays for health care and surely will reverberate in this year's campaigns for president and Congress. The political effects could be even larger if the court votes 5-4 with all its Republican-appointed justices prevailing over all the Democratic appointees to strike down the entire law, or several important parts of it.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Don’t forget one more point:
If all nine justices vote, that means that Elena Kagan must be impeached for not recusing herself as the law requires.
And if that fails to happen, we’ll have somewhere close to a hundred senators to reject over the next three Novembers, and a couple hundred congressmen too.
Failing to impeach Elena Kagan for failure to recuse herself from this case is, in my opinion, an impeachable offense for any legislator. The case is simply too clear; there’s no question about it.
H/T to the Drudge Report.
It is truly sad that such a simple thing can be so complicated by this court. Law is black and white.
1. Is the foundation of our constitution founded on the rights of the individual? Yes or no. The answer is yes.
2. Is an individual who does not buy insurance participating in interstate commerce? The answer is no.
Note: Is the effect of the person not buying insurance felt at an intestate level? The answer here is that it is an irrelevant question. You can’t use the butterfly effect to give the FedGov the right to do ANYTHING.
3. Is the mandate, therefore, unconstitutional? Answer is yes.
When part of a contract or law is stricken down and the law has a severability clause, is the whole law stricken down? The answer is no.
When part of a contract or law is stricken down and the law has no severability clause, is the whole law stricken down? The answer is yes.
Does this law have a severability clause? No.
Is the whole law stricken down? Yes.
These should all be 9-0 decisions, if we have rational, thinking adults on the court that are familiar with the constitution of the united states.
It is literally that simple.
—If all nine justices vote, that means that Elena Kagan must be impeached for not recusing herself as the law requires.—
You are right. It should be 8-0
If there were a conservative party in the United States, it would be proposing an Amendment to the Constitution to restrict the use of the Commerce Clause by the federal government since our modern jurists and representatives perceive it has infinite elasticity. Given that Congress is likely to be unwilling to restrict its own behavior, this change will need to occur via petition from the states for a convention.
Unfortunately, there is no conservative party and there is no organized effort to return to Constitutional law. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judiciary benefit from the current approach to governing using a “living” constitution.
“Ok, so seeing as we’re not architects, how can we remove the entire ground floor from this high-rise building without affecting other floors?”
“Ok, so seeing as we’re not doctors, how can we remove the patient’s heart but keep him alive and get him back to work?”
“Ok, so seeing as we’re not cooks, how can we remove meat from the menu but keep this Brazilian steakhouse popular?”
I agree with you but why has CJ Roberts said she need not?
If she recuses, it could mean a tie...and I think a tie means the opponent (Obama) wins. I think that’s what I remember.
Not familiar with the inner-workings of the SC.... so can someone shed some light?
What takes place after the case is heard? Do the justices, alone or with aides, deliberate? If so , how long? Do they take an initial vote prior to deliberations? Is the procedure like a jury would follow? How do they determine who writes majority/minority opinion?
There is a Constitution Party.
Most young people wouldn’t know what a Constitution is.
Please educate me as to where in the Constitution it provides for the impeachment of Justices of the Supreme Court. I can’t seem to find it. Thanks!
Oral arguments are a formality for show. They may or may not have any bearing on deliberations.
Judges now convene to discuss, vote, form alliances, vote again, lather, rinse, repeat, and then write their various opinions. They take as long as they like.
Not only was she involved as SG prior to the Supremes, but she was involved AS ACTING SG, basically, voicing government arguments to questions, filling in for Verilli when Verilli could not.
Pray very hard for the health of the other 5, at least until the end of the year.
Question, can SCOTUS appointments be done as recess appointments?
It is literally that simple.
Oh you rational thinkers.
Have I not repeatedly told you, never, ever, ever try to use logic and reason with a liberal.
There are four insane liberals on SCOTUS and one is a trans-liberal-moderate-conservative.
You are correct, it should be 9-0, in fact it never should have gone this far, but logic and reason will not apply to liberals.
Was Kagan the one talking about all the bundles of money that is going to be thrown to the states and the half a load crap. Kind of totally goofy question and statement, not scholarly at all!!!
contitution party is the vote splitting party funded by democrats in order to split republican votes.
I assume chances of persuasion/changing of the minds is very slim at this point. Otherwise, the mental midgets (Bader-Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor...) would would be overwhelmed, like going to a gunfight with a BB gun.
So now it is just a matter of who gets to write opinions and key wording within the writings?
Pray for the safety of the judges on the Supreme Court. The Rats would do anything to have a chance to nominate another Judge to replace the 5 conservative judges.