Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Live Thread: SCOTUS hearings on Obamacare [Day 3 Arguments; Post 153+]
National Review ^ | 0/26/2012 | Avik Roy

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bhohealthcare; commerceclause; lawsuit; livescotusobamacare; necessaryproper; obamacare; oralarguements; oralargurments; scotus; scotusobamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-164 next last
To: katiedidit1
I wonder if Hillary and Bill ever regret the pact they made with the evil Soros...to usher in socialism, via healthcare and other means and bring about the swift destruction of this great nation.

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.

61 posted on 03/26/2012 10:38:55 AM PDT by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

Ping to audio & transcripts at #56


62 posted on 03/26/2012 10:40:12 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: alancarp
Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on the case... at least the ‘tax’ portion. Arguments about applicability of the Anti-Injunction Law to Obamacare. Arguments about whether the failure to buy insurance (as required by the Individual Mandate) constitutes a tax or a penalty. (Duh, it’s a penalty). If they rule it’s a tax, then arguments on this cannot be done until 2015 or later. SCOTUS hired their own guy to investigate this.... they are taking it seriously.

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.

63 posted on 03/26/2012 10:48:52 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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


64 posted on 03/26/2012 10:49:19 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

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.


65 posted on 03/26/2012 10:52:21 AM PDT by MomwithHope (Buy and read Ameritopia by Mark Levin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Was Scalia being serious?


66 posted on 03/26/2012 10:52:42 AM PDT by newfreep (Breitbart sent me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Thanks for the correction.


67 posted on 03/26/2012 10:57:33 AM PDT by RitaOK (LET 'ER RIP, NEWT. Newt knows where all the bodies are buried, because he buried them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Appreciated... boy, my untrained ear is having a real hard time with these audio bits.


68 posted on 03/26/2012 10:59:28 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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.”


69 posted on 03/26/2012 10:59:34 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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!!


70 posted on 03/26/2012 11:01:37 AM PDT by LUV W (Obama's foot soldiers are repulsive human debris and the voting public is sick to death of them! *RL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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’


71 posted on 03/26/2012 11:04:42 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Wow! Even liberals make sense sometimes.


72 posted on 03/26/2012 11:04:50 AM PDT by MichaelNewton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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?


73 posted on 03/26/2012 11:06:45 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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.”


74 posted on 03/26/2012 11:07:10 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: MichaelNewton

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.


75 posted on 03/26/2012 11:07:26 AM PDT by jersey117 (The Stepford Media should be sued for malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

bttt


76 posted on 03/26/2012 11:10:24 AM PDT by Uncle Ike (Rope is cheap, and there are lots of trees...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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,”


77 posted on 03/26/2012 11:11:45 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: newfreep

No, he was kidding.


78 posted on 03/26/2012 11:13:28 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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.


79 posted on 03/26/2012 11:13:28 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

IANAL, but it seems to me that’s where she’s leaning.


80 posted on 03/26/2012 11:14:41 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-164 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson