Posted on 03/26/2012 8:11:01 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Edited on 03/26/2012 10:25:10 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I’ll keep posting relevant tweets noted from the NRO online blog. Here’s an example...
“SCOTUSblog:
I’ve posted a mid-argument update. The government is looking for a fifth vote; it isn’t apparent yet. But it is early.”
Janet Adamy
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky: Verrilli [govt lawyer] says Cong is regulating health market where people already participate, not going to new territory.
Personal Comment: BALDERDASH.
That’s a good sign.
janetadamy: #supremecourt @louiseradnofsky: Kennedy probes Verrilli on whether same reasoning could apply to food.
janetadamy: #supremecourt @louiseradnofsky: Kennedy asks Verrilli what limits, if any, there are to government powers under his argument.
Personal Comment: These are the kinds of questions we want to see — especially coming from Kennedy.
@janetadamy
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky: Liberal justices Ginsburg and Breyer have been weighing in repeatedly to further Verrilli’s argument.
@janetadamy
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky: Ginsburg and Breyer also countering skeptical remarks made by Scalia and Alito.
Personal Comment: Not exactly shocked at that.
A fee is paid in return for getting something.
This would be a fine, in return you get nothing.
It’s punishment for not having insurance they design and force on you.
@janetadamy
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky: Ginsburg cites friend-of-court brief on how uncompensated care in Maryland raised consumers’ costs by 7%.
Next tweet: Ginsburg says requiring people to carry health coverage is different from forcing them to buy food.
Personal Comments
1. Cost Containment is not relevant to the argument; not a compelling reason to break the law. Costs can be handled in a myriad of other ways ... many that are actually Constitutional.
2. RBG doesn’t get it (again). The better analogy is that this is a mandate to buy certain kinds of foods and to penalize buying unmandated food.
@janetadamy
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky: Ginsburg suggests uninsured people pass their costs onto others, and that’s why Congress can regulate them.
@janetadamy
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky Ginsburg: “When you make a choice not to buy insurance...When disaster strikes, you may not have the money”
Personal Comments: On the first tweet - that only happens as a result of other regulations that has already occurred... things like forcing hospitals to cover the indigent.
On the second: I’m sorry, does Ginsberg have to make the lawyers points on his behalf??
@janetadamy
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky: Alito points out that everybody will also eventually have to be buried or cremated.
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky: Verrilli says it’s “completely different” since people don’t shift huge uncompensated burial costs to others.
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky: Justice Breyer takes the government’s argument further.
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky: Breyer says a burial coverage requirement could be constitutional.
Personal Comment: *facepalm*
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky Breyer:Constitutional if you have national system of funerals by employers and gov programs Medicare Medicaid
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky: Breyer cut off by Kennedy jumping back in with another question about the possible limits of Commerce Clause
you are awesome......on many topics your play by play is pricesless as it is accurate, needed, and timely
thank you very much for this and all you do
Janet Adamy
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky: Uniform answer from Verrilli so far is that this issue is about market regulation.
Verrilli: Virtually everybody is already in healthcare market or will be; insurance is how they pay for that.
Roberts seeking plenty of answers from the government lawyer on the rationale for the individual mandate.
Personal Comment: (Re: 2nd Tweet) AHA!! If virtually everybody is already in the healthcare market, then you don’t need to mandate anything!! (i.e., this is about Power and Control - not the welfare of the people)
@janetadamy
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky Roberts compares health insurance to fire, police service, which people don’t know they need until emergency
#supremecourt Chief Justice Roberts asked whether that means people can be required to carry cellphones to dial 911 faster
@janetadamy
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky Roberts pushes Verrilli on whether food, cars are just means to an end, and so no different from insurance
@janetadamy
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky Gingsburg says it’s not a free choice that just affects the person making a decision not to buy insurance.
Personal Comment: Huh?
@janetadamy
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky Scalia wasn’t moved by that. Same could be said of cars. More expensive they are, the fewer people buy them
@janetadamy
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky Alito is the most openly skeptical about the idea that mandate is stopping uncompensated care cost-shifting
@janetadamy
#supremecourt @louiseradnofsky: Alito wonders if it forces healthy people “to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else.”
@janetadamy
#supremecourt WSJ’s Kendall: Kagan defends Verrilli, says young people who are subsidizers of the market will be the subsidized when older
@janetadamy
#supremecourt WSJ’s Kendall: Roberts says if the court approved of the mandate, it may be hard to set limitations on what Congress can do
Personal Comment: Yes, we have a winner: Chief Justice John Roberts ‘gets’ it.
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.