Skip to comments.People Are Saying That Obama's Healthcare Law Got Massacred At The Supreme Court Today
Posted on 03/27/2012 9:51:02 AM PDT by C19fan
The Supreme Court just wrapped up the second day of oral arguments in the landmark case against President Obama's healthcare overhaul, and reports from inside the courtroom indicate that the controversial law took quite a beating. Today's arguments focused around the central constitutional question of whether Congress has the power to force Americans to either pay for health insurance or pay a penalty. According to CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were "a train wreck for the Obama administration."
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
The show’s not over till the fat lady votes..............
Yeah I believe what the propagandaists at CNN say, yep, right, uh huh.
The shows not over till the fat lady votes..............
This is great except I wouldn’t believe one word Jeff Toobin said on a bet.
As a rock-ribbed conservative, I’m used to disappointment.
I’ll believe it when the actual verdict is in. Not before.
Folks, do not get your hopes up... I believe justices often ply the screws to help the case find a way to get around the obstacles...
Here’s a thought. If the mandate is struck down how will that effect the Republican primary race since Romney implemented much the same thing in Massachusetts. How can any conservative vote for Romney but oppose Obama.
Don’t count your chickens - there are plenty of cases where appellate judges ask pointed questions to one side and then rule in that side’s favor.
Agreed, although knowing his usual direction and level of spin, if he is calling it a “train wreck” I suspect "complete and unmitigated disaster" is closer to the truth.
If so, I couldn't be happier!
We all know how CFR turned out. :(
Kennedy? It depends on which side of the bed he gets up on tomorrow.
I still say striking down parts of it but finding a way to punt on most of it is a likely outcome.
Here’s hoping that this Kennedy doesn’t swim away and leave us gasping at the bottom of the pond.
A good general rule of thumb is to not read too much into the questioning arguments of the Supreme court to try to divine what they’re thinking. The only given is that leftist judges will vote the way the left wants them to. So, the only thing we know for sure is that it will be a 5-4 decision. We just don’t know what way it will go.
Trying to use logic to convince a liberal is like explaining algebra to your cat.
/sarcasm on/Because it is okay for a state to force people to buy a product/service and not the Federal gov’t/sarcasm off/
Not exactly. It is not over till Justice KENNEDY votes. He IS THE vote. 5-4. He is the one they have to win to defeat this mess.
There is no fat lady on the court. There is no lady on the court. But justice Elana Kagan is fat and gender confused.
It would be more accurate to say "it's not over until Justice Kennedy votes."
What is the population of Massachusetts? What is the population of the United States? Is it possible that what could work in a single state would fall apart if implemented on a nationwide scale because of the sheer number of people involved?
I don't know.
That would make a great tagline. Except I’m not tired of mine yet.
You do have a good tagline.
Romney (or any Republican) gives us a chance of getting a decent Supreme Court justice nominee.
We know what type Obama will give us.
They knock work at noon over there? Nice work if you can get it I guess.
Just for the record, it’s not working in MA. Healthcare costs have surged through the roof and into the stratosphere since Romneycare was implemented. People who can’t afford the premiums are being fined heavily, and if they can’t pay the fines then penalties are being assessed on top of the fines. The other 49 [that would be 56, by Obama’s count] states are paying through the nose to subsidize Romneycare. All they’re trying to do is keep it afloat until they can shift the burden to Obamacare.
I’ve heard that a lot of folks are worried about Roberts.
In regards to Romney his track record of court appointments in Mass is horrible.
Takes a communist like Obama to turn a moderate like Kennedy into a conservative.
Yes, I am talking principle though. It might work in a state as opposed to a whole country. At least in a state you would have the option to move. I’m talking about the moral premise underneath a mandate like that. How can you say you are for individual liberty and limited government and at the same time sign such a bill into law. I only ask because I am having a real hard time with this election. I feel like voting for Romney would be a breach of my principles. I also feel like Obama needs to go at almost any cost. But where to draw the line is the hard question. It feels like some kind of cosmic joke. I thought the message of the 2010 election was pretty clear and yet we are most likely going to end up with a nominee who, in his own state, implemented a plan identical in principle to Obamacare.
...though use of the term “train wreck” does brighten my day a bit
Yeah, that is a very good point indeed.
The way Palin explained it on Greta last night - the Massachusetts law is a states rights 10th Amendment issue. It wasn’t mandated on the entire country like obamacare. She actually articulated it very well when Greta asked her your same question.
Now I gotta clean the ice tea off my screen (LOL) you win post of the day !
It means nothing and just gives cover to the pusillanimity of the judiciary
I'm not concerned about the vote count, it will be 5-4, Unconstitutional, BUT, like the Godfather, I am worried about a terrible accident to one of the conservative Justices, like one is accidentally shot, or hangs himself, or drowns in his bath tub.
I’m afraid the fix has been in since Obama’s privite meeting with the supremes before he was elected. Why else would he need to meet them privately before hand?
Oral arguments are just one small part of what the Justices do. Mostly, it’s to review cases and discuss them with their law clerks and the other justices, and then review and/or edit draft opinions written (or sometimes write them, depending on their relationship with their law clerks).
Well, for one thing, a mandate at the state level is constitutional, while a mandate at the federal level is not. Both are bad policy, but only one is unconstitutional.
Yep... both fat ladies. Unfortunately, they’re Obama’s pets.
I won’t get my hopes up. This Frankenstein’s monster of legislation was supposed to have died back when Scott Brown was elected. I’m sure Souter will be working on Kennedy.
The mandate component is the lynchpin for the whole shebang. If it goes, very likely the whole program goes. Obama would then have to find new sources of funding it.
I read the transcripts from yesterday.
Thing is, there are things going on kind of behind the scenes (or at least cloaked in terminology) that SUGGESTS to me that even if the law passes, it will be one of those things that are actually voluntary.
They specifically mentioned Article III courts yesterday, and that is very, very telling...
Typical performance for a Legal Top Dog selected by an unproven (NO academic credentials that evidence his degrees), affirmative action, white-guilt, black biased poser that is a halfrican Muslim.
This case, unlike most SCOTUS cases, is easy for common folks to understand. Can the federal government force you to buy something, and if so what are the limits to this new federal power? The recent contraceptive mandate helped inform even the Oprah/Jon Stewart crowd.
Liberals on this court will have to literally urinate on the Constitution in order to uphold Obamacare.
Common folks may like the idea of healthcare reform, but not tyranny.
SCOTUS is not inclined to toss out entire laws, but to instead find any/all contortions needed to preserve the law in question to the greatest extent possible. If they can find _any_ way the “individual mandate” could be construed as legal, they’ll find & implement it.
Regardless, it is somewhat heartening to hear of the Administration's Top Legal Dog getting his ass handed to him by one of his own.
The court will decide the mandate is not enforceable but not unconstitutional. No penalties will be able to be legally collected.
A collective WTF will follow.
That meeting happened the day of his inauguration, before he was sworn in, IIRC.
I think the mandate will get struck down as unconstitutional.
Most Americans, I think, have a very uneasy feeling about the mandate.
Striking it down would signal 2 things:
That in a certain sense, the SC still works for the American people
It would be a message to government to go back to Congress and try to figure out another way of doing things.