Skip to comments.Does Obama Already Know the Supremesí Decision on Obamacare?
Posted on 06/06/2012 5:53:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Barring some dramatic break from procedure, the Supreme Court justices have already decided the fate of Obamacare, and are now just working out the written rulings and dissents.
Usually, it works like this: “For cases argued on Monday, the Justices vote on it on Wednesday. Votes on cases argued Tuesday and Wednesday are cast on Friday. The senior Justice voting with the majority assigns the job of writing the majority opinion and the senior Justice voting with the minority chooses who will write the minority opinion. While all Justices can add his or her own statements, the majority opinion stands as the final decision of the court.”
Perhaps for a decision as important as this one, the justices might want to take more time. But it was reported that the Supreme Court held its initial vote on the case Friday, March 30. The justices, and their clerks, are expected to keep the decision secret until the decision and opinions are officially announced. But many speculate that this case will be different; while there is no evidence to suggest that the newest justice, former Obama administration Solicitor General Elena Kagan, would break the code of silence, many wonder whether she would want the president to be blindsided by a decision that partially or completely nullifies his signature domestic policy achievement.
If we take this bit of evidence…
President Barack Obama is confiding to Democratic donors that he may have to revisit the health-care issue in a second term, a position at odds with his publicly expressed confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the Affordable Care Act, according to three Democratic activists.
As he previewed his agenda for donors at a May 14 fundraiser, Obama said he may be forced to try to revise parts of his health-care plan, depending on how the court rules later this month, said one activist, who requested anonymity to discuss the president’s comments. Guests at the $35,800-a-plate dinner in the Manhattan apartment of Blackstone Group LP (BX) President Tony James were asked to check their smart phones and BlackBerries at the door.
The president has made similar remarks, usually in response to questions, at other fundraising events since the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case during the last week of March, according to two other activists, who also requested anonymity.
with this bit of evidence…
Though conversations inside the White House have been kept secret, several Democratic sources said that administration officials now believe that the law can stand without the individual mandate.
….the administration has privately considered alternative reform ideas, despite publicly insisting that such considerations would be premature. One aide put it this way: “When the decision comes down, we will be ready.”
Increasingly, the focus has turned to what would happen should the court rule the individual mandate unconstitutional but declare that it is severable from the rest of the law.
It certainly does start to look like the Obama administration is bracing for a ruling that declares the individual mandate to be unconstitutional. Of course, this could just be prudence on their part.
If Kagen and Sotomayer know it, Obama knows it.
Of course he knows exactly what’s going on. Think Kagan, and Sotomayor.
I would love to be a fly on the wall of the SCOTUS private lunch room.
Praying for a SCOTUS victory comparable to Walker over Barrett — winner take all. I want to see a rout on this one.
Obamacare goes down. All the way.
HHS is pumping out money like there’s no tomorrow.
It’s as if they want to spend it before it’s taken away...
I think they are going to throw the whole thing out. In oral arguments the justices seemed to think you could not separate the individual mandate from the rest of the bill. The legislators did not include a separation clause. The whole thing is stinky cheese.
Kagan tipped them off five minutes after the vote.
The other justices have to know that, which makes me wonder if they'd really tell them how they'll vote.
You are probably right. I don't think she's into that separation of powers business.
That would be an epic disaster especially if Obama gets re-elected and the GOP wins both houses of Congress.
Kagan is an ideological clone of 0bama,
and that means that she doesn’t give a damn about the law or the rules,
the only thing that matters is the advancement of “the cause” (ie, communism).
I think Obama was completely in the dark about the decision—until 30 seconds after Kagan got her door locked.
Of course he knows. That was why he put Kagan and Sotameyer on the Court.
Does anyone know when the opinion will be published? Not a word as of yesterday on the SCOTUS website. I’d like to count the days down. It was supposed to be this month.
No way. Without the individual mandate the whole plan collapses of its own weight. Every insurance company will go bankrupt in a year if people can wait until the day after they get sick or injured to buy insurance which the companies will have sell them at the same rates as perfectly healthy people.
Despite the code of silence, I’m not so sure Roberts wouldn’t turn a blind eye toward Sotomayor or Kagan giving the the President a heads up. This serves the purpose of decidedly lessening the blow-back from the left when the verdict is finally read, which I’m sure they are expecting.
The media has already factored in the verdict not going their way, it seems to me.
All that said, a decision to strike down the mandate will worsen the effect to the Dems of the Wisconsin defeat, as it will add to the repudiation of the Democratic Party brand.
The American people should be ready as well.
If any part of the law stands, we demand utter and total repeal—immediately.
Lots of Dem Senators up for re-election this year—let them decide who they are going to work for—Obama or the people.
Also, a march on Washington by about one million people—is long overdue.
Kagan wouldn’t need to tell them directly. She could just answer questions in a way that allows them to deduce what the vote was...then she can say she didn’t break the SC’s rules.
That might not be bad for the never let a crisis go to waste left. Such a decision would collapse the private insurance business in the US and Obama and company would then try and ram through government, one payer, health care. Would Boehner and McConnell be up for such a battle? We need a full repeal by the Supreme Court to turn the left back from their drive to take over our lives.
No thread referencing Kagen/zer0Care/SCOTUS can be complete without repeating that she should be impeached for non-recusal in a clear-as-day recusal situation.
In its final form Congress didn't include any of the “standard” serverability clauses. Without any of those clauses the Supreme Court will find itself locked into a circular firing squad formation.
If it follows the written worlds of the Constitution to declare the individual mandate unconstitutional how can it add words to the legally passed and signed act?
I am waiting for the formal written ruling. Oh by the way, this is why nothing is legally official until the written ruling is filed and released. In at least one form we are still a nation ruled by laws not by men
c’mon, does anybody REALLY believe that Kagan did not call him two minutes after they took their vote?
The “Constitutional Law Professor” [sic] knew the whole thing was unconstitutional before it was ever rammed through congress, but he was counting on being able to impose his will as emperor. Barring that, even if it is ruled unconstitutional (not a given) we will still be stuck with many of the provisions as part of “administrative” rulings by his regime.
I pray they get rid of the entire unconstitutional bill.
Hard to know if this is significant but here’s some grist for the mill:
I’m amazed at you people... you don’t trust Kagan and Sotomayer?
You think they’d actually squeal to their master?
Wouldn’t that be against all ethics?
Oh, never mind.
You mean a million person march that would be reported by the media as 700 people?
I don’t think marches are that effective.
Votes are. (see Wisconsin)
Marches can generate enthusiasm, which generates votes.
And we do have alternative media to get the word out, regardless of what the LSM reports.
...which would be just fine with the Left. Their whole goal has been to eliminate private health insurance.
If the pols would actually improve American Medicine they would make a strong beginning on eliminating government participation in Medicine. Medicare would be sunsetted as would Medicaid as would all government health programs. With all the fantastic advances being made in medical science now, that would be the beginnings of a heretofore unimaginable increase in lifespan and in the good health and the end of many diseases in the USA and in the world.
Government control will be maintained, however, and most of the advances now in the works will never see implementation excepting a few that will be available only for the upper reaches of the ruling class. The ruling class will try to sequester them all but they will find that the resources necessary will be declining fast. Socialization of medicine will lead rapidly to socialization of everything and accelerating economic decline as the engine of world economic advance sputters to a halt.
No, the whole goal of Obamacare is to unionize one fifth of the economy under the SEIU, creating a permanent voting block for the Democrat Party.
The vote last night for Walker throws a monkey wrench into that plan. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if we start to see some hospitals and clinics return to their old private sector unions, rather than give up their bargaining rights.
The redistributive aspects of Obamacare were always secondary, because the Democrats could have pushed them through with their huge voting block at any time. They expected this to all be a fait accomplis by the time the 2012 election rolled around and Obama could have stayed in office for life. I
It didn’t work out so well.
Does anyone know when the opinion will be published?I would like to know the answer to this question too.
B and M would not give in to anything because they are on the wrong side of that battle to begin with. It is not that they are necessarily pro socialism but they are very much pro themselves and do not want to incur the enmity of those they consider to be the natural ruling class. That is a disease of most Republicans, it seems. They believe Democrats to be the natural Ruling Class and Republicans exist to buff off occasional rough edges of Democrat programs. When they control congress numerically they still defer to Democrats as if they fear retribution when the Democrats come back to power, which Republican lack of character makes inevitable.
I REALLY believe she would not have waited so long.
Can Supreme Court Justices be removed for breaking the law?
Including reeducation/propaganda spending. Would there be a need to double down on pushing this dog if the SC had upheld it?
If the decision is leaked by a lower operative, such as a clerk, his or her legal career is essentially kaput.
IMO these internal sanctions would probably stop Sotomayer, but not Kagen, as she is a complete hack and probably has less respect for the Court than Obama does for the Constitution.
I would bet money Kagan texted Zero the results about one nanosecond after she had the first opportunity to do so.
I can’t help but remember that CFR was going to be a slam dunk
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the Court to strike down unconstitutional legislation, per se. Rather, the Court has the authority to decide that one party before it should be allowed to compel or forbid the other party to do something; this authority includes compelling the state to dismiss charges against someone. The apparent authority to "strike down" legislation stems from the fact that Supreme Court rulings often include indications of how the Court would rule if similar cases were to come before it, and lesser-court judges generally do not want to issue decisions which they know will be immediately overturned on appeal. Thus, if the Supreme Court indicates that it will order that charges be dismissed against anyone who stands before it accused of violating a particular statute, few judges will be willing to enforce that statute and it will be effectively nullified.
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.