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 will be live-blogging the Supreme Court hearings on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from March 26 to 28, beginning at 10 a.m. on Monday. I invite readers and NRO contributors to chip in with their observations. I will also incorporate Twitter feeds from various people from the health-care and legal worlds who are covering the case.
This is my first time running a live-blog, so my apologies if there are beginners’ technical glitches. See you in this space on Monday!
Audio:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/11-398-Monday.mp3
Transcript:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Monday.pdf
Windows Media:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/wmafiles/11-398-Monday.wma
Real Audio:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/realplayerfiles/11-398-Monday.ra
I wonder if they've ever regretted selling out the country, for a seat on the dark side. Only, once you've signed that pact, there's no turning back...or, it would be extremely difficult to.
Nah. They likely have no trouble sleeping at night.
Ping to audio & transcripts at #56
One of the lower courts held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred any challenge to the constitutionality of the individual mandate before 2014. The Obama administration is not making that argument, so the Court appointed a lawyer to argue the lower court's position.
Justice Scalia got a laugh from the gallery from his comment (beginning at 16:31 minutes in) where he says that all federal courts are intelligent. ;p
That’s what I have been thinking too, she might might vote against. She’s been appointed and installed, so she doesn’t need Obama and her place in history will be more important. She surely can see which way the wind is blowing.
Was Scalia being serious?
Thanks for the correction.
Appreciated... boy, my untrained ear is having a real hard time with these audio bits.
Justice Ginsburg says something interesting.
“The Tax Injunction Act does not apply to penalties that are designed to induce compliance with the law rather than to raise revenue. And this is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it’s successful, they won’t — nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise.”
Cool live chat feed. I sure hope they do the right thing here...and also do the will of the people!
GET RID OF THIS ABOMINATION!!
Funny exchange between Ginsberg and the Solicitor General (paraphrased):
RBG: ‘So if a person who is supposed to buy insurance, doesn’t do so, and pays the penalty.... if they are asked if they’ve ever violated a federal law, have they?’
SG: ‘Our position is that they should answer “No” - they have not violated federal law.”
RBG: ‘....if they pay the penalty.’
SG: ‘Yes: if they pay the tax.’
RBG: ‘....if they pay the penalty.’
SG: ‘Yes: if they pay the tax.’
Alito: (I think) ‘You keep saying “the tax”...’ (laughter)
SG: ‘The tax-penalty’
Wow! Even liberals make sense sometimes.
Nice clarification between “tax” and “penalty”.
Any variant of that applicable to the NFA transfer tax? to wit: some (*cough*paltry*cough*) revenue will be raised, nowhere near enough to cover tax office operating costs, because a few hardcore people will be willing to pay for permission to do something the tax is designed to discourage?
Another interesting comment from Justice Ginsburg:
“This is a suit that is challenging the must-buy provision, and the argument is made that, if, indeed, “must-buy” is constitutional, than these complainants will not resist the penalty. So what they’re seeking is a determination that that “must-buy” requirement, stated separately from penalty, that “must-buy” is unconstitutional, and, if that’s so, that’s the end of the case; if it’s not so, they are not resisting the penalty.”
This is way to big to politicize. It will impact the lives of liberals as well as conservatives. I feel they are going to do the right thing.
bttt
Another laugh from the gallery when Mr. Long, who is arguing that the Anti-Injunction Act applies, says:
“Well, I would not argue that this statute is a perfect model of clarity,”
No, he was kidding.
Sounds like she’s suggesting that the constitutionality of the individual mandate pre-empts arguments on the jurisdiction of the tax/penalty provision... and that makes sense: If the mandate is bad, then the penalty clearly cannot stand, and the anti-injunction act applicability is a moot point.
IANAL, but it seems to me that’s where she’s leaning.
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.