The car insurance canard. Yes, the mandate requires all people to pay, you don't have to have car insurance unless you want to drive. Good analogy. However, they still miss the point that the insurance requirements are a STATE level obligation - not a federal mandate. Pretty big distinction.
The second nonsense about requiring hospitals to treat everyone as the basis for mandate is another distraction.
I can't begin to address the core issues as well as the “unelected” justices did in their blistering examination of the brilliant Solicitor General. It is obvious the law should be reversed in total.
It won't, of course. I don't believe Robert's has the cajones to reverse this law.
I think Obama knows this and is ratcheting up the pressure, no matter how shrill it makes the One look. Stephens will concur with a 5-4 upholding the law. Then the left will love the Court again!
Is EMTALA constitutional?
The other point that they seems to miss is that only LIABILITY insurance is required. This protects the OTHER GUY in case you damage him. The state does NOT require you to purchase COMPREHENSIVE, which would protect you. THAT would be equivalent to Obabma-care, and no state requires that.
My prediction as well, at most they will carve out the mandate, but I doubt if they will.
Hundreds of millions have already been spent implementing this monstrosity. They could have reached down and took this case before all the money was spent but they didn't, that should tell us something.
With all the public pressure you can bet the private Chicago pressure is also intense. How close to direct threats against Roberts et al’s families are they getting? Are they doing it with anonymous callers? That would be ineffective and the Chicago mob would know that. Conservatives get those all the time. So I am guessing known administration people are making direct threats, on the q.t, but direct. Along with the threats would necessarily be promises of benefits in Cayman banks or similar; offers they can’t refuse as it were.